[lbo-talk] DLC on Breaux and the South

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Tue Dec 16 10:10:56 PST 2003

Previous message: [lbo-talk] Saddam's Capture: U.S. Will Rue the Day
Next message: [lbo-talk] DLC on Breaux and the South
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Search LBO-Talk Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort

[if you act like a Republican, you can win in the South!]

============================================= THE NEW DEM DAILY, 16-Dec-03 Political commentary & analysis from the DLC ============================================= [ New Democrats Online: http://www.ndol.org ]

----- Make the New Dem Daily EASIER TO READ! Get it in HTML format instead of plain text by changing your preference setting here: <http://www.ndol.org/cobrand/change_profile_login.cfm> -----

Will Democrats Retire From the Battle for the South?

The announcement by Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) that he will retire from the Senate when his third term expires next year was not unexpected, but it is still an unhappy development for his state and his country. Breaux has long since earned a post-Congressional career after more than 30 years in the House and the Senate, but his political and policy skills will be missed all the same. We will publish a fuller assessment of his remarkable career -- not only as a legendary deal-maker, but as an under-appreciated innovator in health care and social policy -- at a later date.

But today we'd like to comment on the implications of the Breaux retirement for his party.

For many years Republicans have claimed that the only real obstacle to their total domination of the South -- and consequently a big permanent advantage for the GOP in presidential and Congressional elections -- was the stubborn endurance of a handful of bigger-than- life centrist Democrats, especially in the Senate. When they finally retire, Republicans said, the South will fall to the GOP like an overripe apple.

With Breaux's retirement, it's clear we are going to have a definitive test of this proposition next November. Aside from Breaux, Democratic Senators are retiring in Florida (Bob Graham), Georgia (Zell Miller), South Carolina (Fritz Hollings), and North Carolina (John Edwards).

There's no inherent reason that Democrats should not be able to hold most of these seats. Indeed, early polls show Democratic contenders Erskine Bowles and Betty Castor running ahead of potential Republican rivals in North Carolina and Florida, respectively. If Rep. Chris John decides to run for Breaux's seat in Louisiana, he, too, would be an early favorite, especially given the recent victories of two Democrats, Sen. Mary Landrieu and Governor-elect Kathleen Blanco, in that state.

But the larger question is whether the national Democratic Party is willing and able to fight for the South.

Already there are voices being raised in Washington urging Democrats to permanently concede the region to the GOP. Indeed, "Forget the South" was identified as one of the hot new political ideas of 2003 in last Sunday's edition of The New York Times Magazine.

It's a really bad idea. Sure, a Democratic presidential candidate can technically put together an electoral college majority without the South -- as Al Gore nearly did in 2000 -- but such a strategy leaves absolutely no margin for error elsewhere in the country, and enables Republicans to concentrate all their massive financial resources in the purported battleground states of the Midwest. Moreover, a GOP sweep of the South in future presidential elections is not at all a foregone conclusion; it's ridiculous to assume that the 2000 election is the only relevant example. The Clinton-Gore ticket twice won five southern states, not a million years ago, but in 1992 and 1996. As John Judis and Ruy Teixeira demonstrated in their recent book "The Emerging Democratic Majority," demographic trends in several southern states favor Democrats, as does the dismal economic performance of key southern states under the policies of George W. Bush.

In down-ballot elections, Democrats have survived wave after wave of supposedly irreversible Republican assaults in the South, dating back to the 1960s. Conceding the South now would likely concede control of Congress to the GOP for the foreseeable future.

There's actually something of a template for a Democratic revival in the kind of southern Senate battleground we will witness in 2004. It was in 1986 -- another year when the pundits were predicting a definitive Republican takeover of the region. Using a tough national security message and championing the economic aspirations and cultural outlook of middle-class voters, Democratic challengers won back Republican Senate seats that year in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. In Louisiana, the seat of retiring Senate giant Russell Long was held by a young House member named John Breaux. Overall, the party's strong performance in the South was the key to a Democratic takeover of the Senate after six years of Republican control.

Then as now, Democrats won't succeed in the South, in presidential or in Senate elections, just by showing up. It will require local candidates and a national ticket that's determined to advance a tough, positive message on national security; that convinces middle- class voters that Democrats have a vision and a plan for restoring the broad-based economic and social progress, along with the fiscal responsibility, of the Clinton years; and that addresses the cultural concerns about Democrats that conservatives have spent so much time and money instilling and exploiting.

The five Senate retirements in the South don't make this challenge any easier for Democrats, but they do make it a matter of urgency that should inform how Democrats think about their future prospects of regaining Congress and the immediate decision they must make about a national standard-bearer. If Democrats write off the South in 2004, or pretend they can remain competitive in the region with a left-bent national message, then they will make the uphill climb to a durable national majority far steeper than it has to be.