How Some White Conservatives View Obama, and Why Obama Can't Seem to Put McCain Away

[Pangloss]

Interesting article in the Sunday Times (the famous British paper, not the New York Times) about Obama continuing to alienate the Bubba voter.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4553100.ece

 

The article interviews a southern Republican poll worker whose not afraid to speak his mind (to put it mildly). Here are a couple of standout quotes, and then my thoughts.

 

Along with his Confederate flag bedspread, the stag heads on his walls, his preference for profanity over punctuation, he would horrify what he calls the “northeastern elitist, Metropolitan Opera wing of the Democrats”.

 

“The Democrats talk of tolerance, but in reality the only tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own intellectual arrogance — and they don't have tolerance for my culture,” says Mudcat. “They think we're a bunch of hillbilly heathens who go out and burn crosses and do crazy bullshit.

 

“They don't give a f*** if we're with them or not, because it doesn't matter. The f***ing Republicans have stolen the individual liberties thing and that's why the gun thing is such a big deal.”

 

Um, okay then. Sounds like a regular Rush Limbaugh caller, eh? But he does have an interesting (and amusing) point or two. This is what he feels Obama should be saying to people like him:

 

Inside every rural Republican is a rural Democrat begging to get out. But we always trip over our johnsons.

 

Colorful. But also an interesting point. And:

 

“The campaign,” he says scornfully, “think this election will be won on the internet. But here, at 5.30 in the afternoon, they don't go on the goddamn internet, they go watch The Andy Griffith Show [a 1960s sitcom].”

 

Quite to the point. He goes on to insist that it's not about racism, and I think for most voters he's right, at least in the sense that they're not thinking that they're voting against Obama because he's black. What racist angle there is in this election is far subtler than that.

 

Your swing vote in the Appalachians comes down to common-sense thinking people who have strong faith, and what Barack Obama needs to do is embrace his culture. Because we like his culture. But nobody knows anything about him; over 10 per cent of the rednecks out here — and I'm a redneck — think he's a Muslim 'cause nobody's ever told 'em any different.”

 

And it's hard to argue that the guy's an idiot when he pulls out references like this:

 

He says a “cultural wedge” has been placed between Democrats and Scots-Irish voters just as Hadrian built a wall to keep them back in Britain. “It is the same exact people. It's the same f***ing bunch of fight, sing, drink, pray people who are over there who are over here in these mountains.”

 

And the Democrats are on the wrong side of it? “You're damn right. They're on Hadrian's side of the wall is where they are. And they want the Scots-Irish vote. Well it's true. It's f***ing genes. It's who we are as a people. We'll say 'f*** you' to Bush, Longshanks or Maggie Thatcher. F*** any of 'em.”

 

Gee. He sure doesn't sound like a typical Rush Limbaugh caller NOW, does he?

 

The point of all this being that I think we get a little too comfortable with certain stereotypes here at SFN sometimes, and I wanted to offer a different perspective. White southern men aren't the red-necked, gun-toting yokels of yore anymore. They're more worldly, better educated, less racially unbiased than they were a few decades ago, and they are very, very motivated about voting.

 

I hear sentiments like the above quite a lot amongst these types of people when it comes to Obama. Frankly I've been surprised that more of my friends and associates in general, many of them Democrats, haven't embraced Obama. There are many reasons for it, but there are quite a few things that Obama can do to address these shortcomings.

 

Ultimately I have two points here:

 

1) White conservative opposition to Obama isn't rooted in racism, or at least not overtly so. It may be an underlying factor, but it could be assuaged and offset by properly spoken words and promises of a more moderate (less liberal) nature.

 

2) These people are very win-overable. It seems to me that southern conservatives are more open to the idea of voting for a Democrat than they have been in 20+ years. Polling supports this -- just look at how many states are considered contested now. And yet he can't seem to put the numbers up.

 

This thread is mainly about why he continues to fall short in the polls, and how he fails to appeal to certain specific groups. What do you all think?

 

---

line[/hr]

Wups, I forgot the second article. This was in the Saturday New York Times:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34711

 

It's an article about 15 prominent Democrats coming to Obama and asking him to do more to appeal to undecided moderate voters, as well as malingering Clinton supporters:

 

Yet these advisers also acknowledge that the Obama phenomenon — the candidacy that helped inspire record voter registrations and turnout during the primaries — has come down to earth in a divided, economically stressed nation. Even though political analysts say that the economic conditions favor the Democrats in this election, and Mr. Bush’s unpopularity could hurt Republicans, Mr. Obama has not broken away from Mr. McCain in polling — a reflection, in part, of the huge numbers of undecided voters across party lines.

 

Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado, the host of next week’s Democratic National Convention, said Mr. Obama needed to hone and amplify his plan to create more jobs if he wants to woo undecided independent voters, who make up the largest bloc of the electorate in the swing state.

 

“His message is the right one, but he needs to turn up the volume and sharpen it a bit because these are voters who care a great, great deal about the future of the economy,” Mr. Ritter said. “He has to convince them he is ready for that huge task.”

 

“I would really like to see him do things in Tennessee that would help in other working-class and blue-collar places, like Ohio,” Mr. Bredesen said. “Job security and health care are huge here. He needs to come to the aisle of Home Depot and show them that a Harvard graduate — which I am as well — knows how to help them.”

Edited August 18, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[CDarwin]

I've been mildly surprised actually with how much critical attention Obama's 'plight' in the the South and especially in the Appalachians has gotten. I mean, have we forgotten the man's a Democrat? I live in a county that hasn't elected a Democrat to anything but constable since Reconstruction. With the periodic exception of West Virginia, from union support, Democrats just don't win Appalachia, even back when they did the rest of the South. Barack Obama probably does have more of a problem than Democrats before him because he's more obviously an 'other,' so people are suspicious and skeptical, but I seriously doubt he's going to fail to bring in a single electoral vote that Kerry or Gore got because of his Appalachian problem. With the exception of West Virginia, no state has nearly a majority of its population in the mountains. The fact is, he can win North Carolina without Mayberry.

 

Oh, and I wonder where that guy they interviewed lives. The Andy Griffith Show comes on at 5:30 here too.

Edited August 18, 2008 by CDarwin

[Sisyphus]

I agree on all points. It's certainly a "cultural" issue, much more complex than "simple racism," which is probably almost extinct. It's still there and it's definitely still playing a large roll, but it's subtle and beneath the surface. We in the liberal northeastern elite (of which I don't deny being a member) have an unfortunate tendency to oversimplify, because that culture is at least the heir of the culture of overt racism. But really, that's almost a red herring. I have a close friend (a real close friend, not a "token friend") from the deepest redneck bastion of Appalachia, and we've had a lot of conversations along these lines. If anything, the cultural differences are even bigger than the stereotypes suggest, both in profound differences in daily life, and in more abstract values. Just comparing notes between how the American Civil War (sorry, the "War of Northern Aggression") is taught in schools in suburban New York vs. rural Appalachia highlights the hurdles - they may as well be talking about two completely different events, with only the names of some of the characters the same (but heroes become cartoonish villains, and vice versa).

 

Even so, what was even more surprising was the amount of common ground between cultures. So much of the animosity is based on misconceptions, and it's really tragic. So much of it is "they think they're better than us and want to tell us how to run our lives" vs. "they're just hate-mongering, gun-toting, Bible-thumping racists." There is an element of truth to both characterizations, but only that, and politicians have for their own advantage intentionally and artificially driven the wedge deeper for almost as long as the country has existed.

 

In all seriousness, I really think we all might benefit from a "intranational student exchange program," so people can see for themselves what we really have in common.

[D H]

The article interviews a southern Republican poll worker whose not afraid to speak his mind (to put it mildly). Here are a couple of standout quotes, and then my thoughts.

Along with his Confederate flag bedspread' date=' the stag heads on his walls, his preference for profanity over punctuation, he would horrify what he calls the “northeastern elitist, Metropolitan Opera wing of the Democrats”.[/quote']

The article was trying to paint Bubba as an ignorant rube who would be voting for Obama if only he had a little bit upstairs. Bubba isn't the only kind of person in this country who prefers profanity over punctuation. Have you never been to New York f**in City or to f**in Boston? The f**in natives of those two f**in cities f**in carpet bomb their vocabulary with the f-bomb -- and they predominantly vote Democratic.

 

The obvious reason why conservatives aren't leaning to Obama is right here:

I mean, have we forgotten the man's a Democrat?

[DJBruce]

Up until the 1968 Election the south was the strong hold of the Democratic party but after all that happened that year the Democrats betrayed there base and since the south has primarily voted Republican. If somehow the Democrats could get back in touch with most southern voters they would be very difficult to beat in any election. But, i highly doubt Obama will be the persons to recapture this base. He has already been portrayed as a elitist and he has struggled to remove that title.

[doG]

I'm white, love Andy Griffith and I ain't votin' for him cuz he ain't qualified to be President......yet. Not to worry thought cuz I ain't votin' for that f'in' McCain either...

[Pangloss]

I have a close friend (a real close friend, not a "token friend") from the deepest redneck bastion of Appalachia, and we've had a lot of conversations along these lines. If anything, the cultural differences are even bigger than the stereotypes suggest, both in profound differences in daily life, and in more abstract values. Just comparing notes between how the American Civil War (sorry, the "War of Northern Aggression") is taught in schools in suburban New York vs. rural Appalachia highlights the hurdles - they may as well be talking about two completely different events, with only the names of some of the characters the same (but heroes become cartoonish villains, and vice versa).

 

I agree with this, although I feel obligated to add that (and I think you'll agree with me here) there's no suggestion in that southern "version" of the civil war that freeing the slaves was a bad thing, that the south was noble because of slavery, or that blacks were or are less capable than whites. Those were all common sentiments in the ante-bellum south, but they're not common sentiments today, even amongst stereotypical red-necks. The article touches on this as well and I think it's an important point.

 

I'm not sure it's so much a classroom thing anymore as a matter of learning outside the classroom. I call it the "Boy Scout meetings and camping trips" factor. What I learned at Boy Scout summer camp was VERY different from what I learned in school, and some of it was kinda chilling from a socio-political perspective.

 

Up until the 1968 Election the south was the strong hold of the Democratic party but after all that happened that year the Democrats betrayed there base and since the south has primarily voted Republican.

 

That's the oft-cited 1964 Civil Rights Act factor, which caused a lot of conservative white southerners (Democrats) to feel betrayed. Further evidence of this is the fact that they continued to vote for local and state Democrats, especially guys like Georgia governor Lester Maddox, who had a well-known position on the inferiority of blacks (he closed his own restaurant rather than serve blacks).

 

But it's worth noting that the "solid south" didn't really become solid until the Reagan revolution, and didn't really have much to do with racism overall. It was a bigger picture than that. For this I usually reference the statistics-heavy, science-minded Earl and Merle Black (of Rice and Emory Universities), and their books "The Rise of Southern Republicans" and "The Vital South". (They have a new one out about partisanship in America.)

[CDarwin]

Does anyone know which three Southern senators didn't sign on to the Southern Manifesto (drafted by Strom Thurmond in opposition to Brown v Board)? Two were from one state. It's not strictly on topic to the discussion of Barack Obama, but I think it's an interesting bit of trivia, especially because I'm not totally sure of the reason it was these three or those two states. There might be some deep kernel of truth buried in there that will shed reams of light on Obama's likely fate in the South.

[bascule]

This whole election really feels like a battle between the old conservative guard and a younger generation energized around a candidate they feel they can relate to.

 

I've been watching the AMC series Mad Men lately and can't help but feel the parallels to the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy. Especially Obama running what many might consider a largely substance-free campaign and Nixon being a grumbling troll.

 

That worked out for Kennedy in the end... barely...

 

Inside every rural Republican is a rural Democrat begging to get out. But we always trip over our johnsons.

 

Remember: a rural Republican is a rural Democrat with a bigger penis. Durrrr?

[waitforufo]

The Southern US is also most impacted by US military and foreign policy. The following site,

 

http://www.southernstudies.org/news/fs20050825.htm

 

provides the following information (not sure how accurate it is.)

 

*** The South provides a disproportionate share of the nation’s troops. An analysis of Department of Defense state reveals that 35% of the nation’s active-duty military personnel come from 13 Southern states. Of the top 15 states where those serving in the military are born, the South accounts for seven.

 

*** The South especially dominant in stationing troops. 51% of active-duty U.S. military personnel based in the continental U.S. are stationed in the South. Four of the top states for stationing troops are in the South: Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia.

 

*** The South has been the region most highly impacted by the loss of soldiers in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the U.S. troops that have died in Iraq, 38% were based in the South. 47% of those killed in Afghanistan were based in Southern states.

 

*** Southern states draw a substantial share of military contracting and production. An analysis of prime defense contracts reveals that 32% of the contracts granted in 2005 have gone to companies operating in Southern states, led by states rich in defense production such as Virginia, Texas and Florida.

 

*** Southern leaders play a critical role in promoting a unilateral and aggressive foreign policy. An analysis of voting records reveals the critical role played by the South’s Congressional delegation in promoting military investment and foreign wars. For example, in the latest scorecard by Peace Action, 58% of Southerners in the U.S. House and Senate scored in the bottom quarter of the peace group’s ratings on key votes for the Iraq war, arms sales, and support for the United Nations.

 

When I lived in Atlanta, I found that southerners had strong support for the military regardless of race. This perhaps is another reason the democratic party has soft support in the south. Obama's Iraq withdrawal plans are quite likely another issue with the redneck set.

[Sisyphus]

Does anyone know which three Southern senators didn't sign on to the Southern Manifesto (drafted by Strom Thurmond in opposition to Brown v Board)? Two were from one state. It's not strictly on topic to the discussion of Barack Obama, but I think it's an interesting bit of trivia, especially because I'm not totally sure of the reason it was these three or those two states. There might be some deep kernel of truth buried in there that will shed reams of light on Obama's likely fate in the South.

 

Well, I know now that you made me look it up myself, jerk. To save others the trouble, it was:

 

Al Gore, Sr. (D-Tenn.)

Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.)

Lyndon Johnson (D-Tex.)

 

Yes, it's that Lyndon Johnson (the president), that Al Gore (father of the VP), and that Kefauver (Adlai Stevenson's running mate in '56). Johnson wasn't asked to sign, being the Senate Majority Leader at the time. So that just leaves the two guys from Tennessee. I don't know what significance that has, either.

[Pangloss]

Lol, that's interesting, I didn't know that either. That just goes to show you how united the conservative southern Democrats used to be, that there were only a couple of people who refused to sign it. Also interesting to note how most of the southern states are represented by Democrats twice on that list -- that's how solid the south was for Democrats back then.

 

Notable signees (according to the Wikipedia article) include Carl Vinson, William Fulbright (of scholarship fame), and Russell B. Long, the infamous whip prior to Kennedy (played by Walter Mathau in Stone's JFK movie).

[CDarwin]

Well, I know now that you made me look it up myself, jerk. To save others the trouble, it was:

 

Al Gore, Sr. (D-Tenn.)

Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.)

Lyndon Johnson (D-Tex.)

 

Yes, it's that Lyndon Johnson (the president), that Al Gore (father of the VP), and that Kefauver (Adlai Stevenson's running mate in '56). Johnson wasn't asked to sign, being the Senate Majority Leader at the time. So that just leaves the two guys from Tennessee. I don't know what significance that has, either.

 

I'd forgotten Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader. So that makes it even more striking. It might have something to do with the history of Tennessee politics. By mid-century, the state was just emerging from the dominance of the Memphis Crump machine, which Kefauver and Gore helped destroy. Crump died in the 50s, but he had backed Strom Thurmond in his Dixiecrat run, so opposition to the Southern Manifesto may have been part of both men's opposition to Crump (maybe, I don't really know). Tennessee's governor at the time was also a racial moderate, and the state trended that way, so it may have just been that.

 

Alot of Texans didn't sign either, you'll note, so there must be something in that state too. I wonder if the percentage of African Americans in a state might mean anything. I'm not quite sure on the numbers for Tennessee and Texas (or what they were in the 1960s), but I'm almost positive they're lower than say, South Carolina or Mississippi. That was the primary fear of white Southerners during the Reconstruction, that the freed slaves would be so electorally powerful they could 'take over' Southern states.

Edited August 18, 2008 by CDarwin