newsouthernstrategies.org

Transcript: Opening remarks

New Strategies for Southern Progress conference

Feb. 25, 2005

Carolina Inn, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Speakers:

John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress

Ferrel Guillory, director of the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public

Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions and views expressed below are those of the speakers and do not

necessarily reflect or state the opinions of the organizers of the non-partisan New Strategies for

Southern Progress conference. More: www.newsouthernstrategies.org.

MR. PODESTA: Good morning,

everyone. For those of you who

weren't here last night, I'm John

Podesta, with the Center for American

Progress. I just want to state again the

wonderful panel that we began this

conference with last night. David

Pryor, Hodding Carter --

(Applause)

I think that it was not just a powerful

vision that was expressed on that

panel, but the lives that those

gentlemen have led that really

provided an inspiration to all of us

here throughout -- at this conference

and in the days ahead that something

really is possible. When you put your

mind to it, put your soul into it, you

can get a lot -- you can get a lot done.

Everybody heard me last night. I'm

not going to repeat what I said, but

I'm about to turn the program over to

our partner, Ferrel Guillory, but

before I do that, I want to take a

moment to thank the staff here at

UNC because it was their leadership

in organizing this program, being such

wonderful hosts, that really made this

thing possible. And, Ferrel, thank you

but thank also your staff. I think it's

no exaggeration to say this conference

would not have been possible without

you and your staff.

And as I mentioned last night, the

New Strategies for Southern Progress

Conference partners are not partisan

educational institutions that do not

seek to advance the interest of any

particular political party or candidate

for office, but we do seek to advance a

progressive agenda.

Today we want to continue our efforts

to identify the policies and ideas that

can help shape a moderate progressive

narrative in the South. I think those

of us here would probably be in

agreement, as most of the panels were

last night, on some of the most

important components of that: Better

schools, affordable quality health care,

new business investment, to promote

sustainable economic growth and jobs,

jobs for the future and jobs with a real

future. And I think all of those things

are linked together, and we'll be

exploring them during the course of

Page 2

the day.

We seek -- in short, new strategies we

seek have less to do with struggle than

with advancement and seeing to it that

every Southern family has the

opportunity to work hard and grab

hold of the American dream. To help

us in that exploration, we're lucky to

be joined by a very talented group of

current leaders and scholars who will

explore in greater detail some of the

challenges facing this region and the

progressive response. And with

today's discussion, we hope we can

begin to craft a progressive framework

for developing those responses that

are going to lead us into the future.

To help get us started this morning,

we're going to -- we'll have a brief

introduction by Ferrel. Then take a

little bit of a break so that people can

refresh their coffee and then we're

going to start with the panel. But to

help get us going this morning is our

partner and host, Ferrel Guillory,

Director of the Program on Southern

Politics, Media and Public Life at the

University of North Carolina.

(Applause.)

MR. GUILLORY: Thank you, John.

I want to reciprocate genuinely in

thanking you and Alys Campaigne and

Drew Warshaw -- wherever Drew is

-- and the staff for the Center for

American Progress. You've been

wonderful to work with and have

been stimulating collaborators. I'd

like to also thank Andy Brack for his

collaboration. Andy is here today and

tomorrow to take a big step toward

realizing his dream of creating a

Center for a Better South.

John mentioned our staff. The vast

staff includes Eric Gautschi. Eric is

here. Eric is the assistant director of

the program, and I mention that so

that you will know that we have

graduate students here who are

working on our new blog. And so this

session -- these sessions today are

going to be reported in almost real

time on the web, southnow.org. We

invite you to visit us. There's a lot of

data on the South there too.

I want to recognize my colleagues at

the Center for the Study of the

American South, Bill Ferris, Harry

Watson -- I didn't see Harry come in

but I think he's here -- and Judith

Wegner, the chair of the faculty and

our esteemed colleague in the law

school back here. Thank you, Judith,

for being here. And thanks to all of

you for showing up in numbers far

beyond what we had originally

anticipated and even budgeted for, but

somehow we'll manage.

Let me take a couple of minutes here

just to frame the conversation we're

going to have today at this podium

and the table and around the tables

where you are sitting. The academic

plan for the University of North

Carolina Chapel Hill broadens our

university's concept and commitment

to public service to encompass the

concept of public engagement. The

plan envisions that the university

works to identify the major issues

facing us in our time and place, and

that it would contribute to the

development of policies to address

those challenges.

The plan also says that the future of

Page 3

society at the state, national and

international levels requires greater

understanding of how the next

generation of leaders can be nurtured

effectively to become the best possible

decision makers for the public and

private sectors.

Since its inception, the Program of

Southern Politics, Media and Public

Life has sought to serve as a

connecting tissue between the

university and the public realm of our

state and region, and I'm especially

indebted to the Z. Smith Reynolds

Foundation -- some members of its

board and staff are here -- for the

funding that has sustained us. And I

owe a special debt of gratitude to Tom

Lambeth back there for his leadership

of the university and of our state.

As its director, my twin goals have

been to build stronger capacity at

Chapel Hill for informing the state

and regional agenda in nurturing

public leadership. We gather here in

keeping with the mandate for

engagement and in keeping with the

history and the tradition of the

University of North Carolina Chapel

Hill.

In his 1941 book, Tar Heels, a Portrait

of North Carolina, Jonathan Daniels

devoted a chapter called The Village

Citadel to the University and its

special meaning to North Carolina and

the South. Daniels described the

University at Chapel Hill as the freest

university in the South, as free as any

in America. And he saw that its

distinctive strength resided in its --

illuminating and advancing the state

and region's long-marched progress.

While it may seem like a miracle --

that was Daniels' word -- that our

state produced the South's premiere

public university, Daniels concluded

by writing, there is hardly any place in

the South which makes such a light.

More than 50 years later, George

Brown Tindall, who is a professor

emeritus of history here at UNC

Chapel Hill, observed about the

university, by casting down its buckets

where it was, the university achieved a

national and world recognition which

few, if any, had anticipated as a result

of such seeming parochialism.

Throughout the last century, two

powerful currents in an amalgam of

culture and economics and ideology

have coursed through the region's

political landscape, and our panels and

I have talked about this. One stream

has its head waters in the traditionalist,

isolated churchgoing, rural

communities that mark our state and

much of the South through the first

half of the 20th century. And it now

winds its way through sprawling

suburbs where it picks up strength

from economic Libertarians and

moderate Christian fundamentalists.

There's a competing stream that flows

out of a public private partnership

devoted to educational advancement

and economic modernizing. Out of

this stream have come leaders, both

public and private, who work toward

racial change. And it includes a

network that still exists of civic

business and political leaders.

Of course, state by state differences

exist in a region that stretches all the

way from the Potomac to the

Pedernales. If I were in my native

state of Louisiana right now, I would

Page 4

have to say a few words about Longs

and anti-Longs and about party politic

divided among three cultures. But

here in North Carolina, I can say that

this progressive stream has been

augmented by a strong philanthropic

sector and nourished intellectually

over the years by the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It makes sense, therefore, that in this

place where Howard Odom and Frank

Porter Graham and Bill Freiden and

Terry Sanford and our current

governor -- whom I hope you'll meet

in a few minutes -- Mike Easley, the

place where they learned and learned

to lead, that we gather to consider the

course and the condition of the

progressive stream in Southern life.

This is an intellectually significant

subject, and in tackling it, we should

be prepared to think deeply and

rigorously about the South of today as

it is actually lived by its citizens.

At the university, with an abiding

commitment to its public character,

we ought to encourage discussion and

full-throated debates as we have

through an array of forums that foster

a clash of ideas across the ideological

spectrum, deliberation and debate

through which a democracy thrives. I

look forward to the university serving

as an even livelier hub of Southern

studies, policy analysis and leadership

development.

Having dismantled legal racial barriers,

the South has grown in population

and economic prowess. It is a

dynamic changing region, capable of

national leadership. Still progress is

not automatic. Politics won't

inevitably improve. We've got to

work at it. Democracy must be

attended to day by day, and that's what

we're here to do. And I thank you for

coming here today to take part in a

discussion at a great university that

surely will lead to a more robust

democracy in the American South. So

thank you for being here.

(Applause.)

Okay. We've got two dashes to make.

The panel and moderator are going to

dash up here and some of us,

including me, are going to dash to the

coffee pot, and then we're going to get

started in about three minutes.

(A recess was taken.)

Page 5

Transcript: Mind of the South: Understanding Public Attitudes

New Strategies for Southern Progress conference

Feb. 25, 2005

Carolina Inn, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Speakers:

Andy Brack, president of the Center for a Better South

David Beattie, Hamilton Beattie & Staff, Fernandina Beach, Fla. (moderator)

Susan Howell, Director, Survey Research Center, University of New Orleans

Ruy Teixeira, Joint Fellow, Center for American Progress and The Century

Foundation

Mac McCorkle, principal, McCorkle Policy Consulting

David "Mudcat" Saunders, Political Consultant

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions and views expressed below are those of the speakers and do not

necessarily reflect or state the opinions of the organizers of the non-partisan New Strategies for

Southern Progress conference. More: www.newsouthernstrategies.org.

MR. BRACK: Good morning. Good

morning. That is what is called

progress. You-all did better the

second time. My name is Andy Brack.

I'm from Charleston, South Carolina,

and I'm the president of the New

Center for a Better South. We want

to welcome you-all here and thank

you for coming this morning.

A fellow last night that was sitting

over here from North Carolina asked,

what does it mean to be progressive?

And I started thinking about it last

night, again, and I think it means

doing better for everyone. Working

on policies and programs and

procedures and this, that and the

other to move things forward for

everyone regardless of whether you're

black, white, brown, yellow, blue,

green, purple or polka-dotted. And I

think that a lot of people in the South

these days don't look to do better by

everyone.

They don't seem to remember the

incantation, love thy neighbor as

thyself. They don't seem to remember

things like, let's leave this earth a

better place than when we found it.

And I think that the challenge that

exists for my generation is to

overcome a culture of hate that has

seemed to infect Southern politics and

Southern policies and legislatures, to

overcome the stalemate, to get past

the intellectual gridlock that has

matured in legislatures all around.

That's my preaching for the day.

I want to get over a couple of

housekeeping matters, and then we'll

move straight to our first panel. First

of all, tomorrow morning we will have

a meeting of -- an organizational

meeting for the Center for a Better

South to which you-all are all invited.

There will be breakfast at 8:30 and the

meeting starts at 9. We'll be happy to

welcome former Georgia Governor

Roy Barnes who will speak and who

Page 6

will help make a case for a new

Southern progressive think tank.

There's also an op ed that was in

yesterday's News and Observer that

you might pick a copy up outside that

tries to make that case as well.

Tomorrow's meeting is on Saturday so

anybody who wears a tie gets shot.

I also want to thank my friend Lynn

Clark, who's in the pink in the back

here, and she is doing the official

transcript for today's proceedings.

We'll have some from last night too.

And in two or three weeks we hope to

send an e-mail around to all of you-all

for people who have e-mails to give

you results of the conference. So you

don't have to take notes, because she's

taking notes for us.

Also I want to thank all of my friends

from Charleston who have come here.

Most of the time the guys wear the

typical Charleston uniform, which is a

blue blazer and khaki pants that most

of us would call high waters. But

they're disguised throughout the room

so you-all watch out for them. Thank

you-all from Charleston and from

South Carolina for coming. And I also

want to thank the Center for

American Progress, John Podesta,

Alys Campaigne, Drew Warshaw and

Ferrel Guillory for all they've done to

make this panel and this conference

possible.

What we're going to talk about first --

last night we kind of framed the

discussion. What we're going to talk

about this morning is to get the

observation and analysis of some

leading pollsters and some leading

political figures about where the South

is. What is the mind of the South

right now? What are we dealing with?

It's not Jethro and the Dukes of

Hazzard and grits. The South now is

a black, white, brown and yellow

society. And we need to understand

more deeply how this society is

functioning if we seek to make

progressive changes in it.

This panel also is going to be

important because the observations

that are voiced here will help lead to

what I hope is an annual Better South

Poll, and that isn't a global warming

type thing. That's going to be an

annual poll that the Center for a

Better South comes up with to

measure how we're doing on

implementing and thinking about

progressive issues.

So let's talk -- let me introduce this

morning the panel to you. Starting

here on my right, your left, is Dave

Beattie, who's the moderator. Dave is

president of Hamilton, Beattie and

Staff which is a Florida and

Washington polling firm. He is a

talented young pollster, and you can

read about his bio in the thing, as for

everyone. But I think that you'll find

that he likes looking behind the

numbers to figure out what does it

mean to attitudes.

Next we have our friend Mudcat,

David "Mudcat" Saunders is a rural

political consultant in partner with

Steve Jarding in the Rural Renaissance

Consulting Firm in southern Virginia.

I think you'll enjoy listening to some

of his stories.

Then we have Ruy Teixeira, who is a

joint fellow at the Center for

American Progress and the Century

Page 7

Foundation. You-all might remember

he wrote an outstanding book about a

year and a half, two years ago called

the Emerging Democratic Majority.

That really put a -- showed how

progressive folks can move forward

and how the numbers are on our side.

And finally we have Dr. Susan

Howell from New Orleans who is the

director of Survey Research Center at

the University of New Orleans and a

professor of political science. She's

got some slides that I think you'll

really enjoy. So without further adieu,

thank you-all again for coming and let

me give you Dave Beattie and he'll get

rolling.

MR. BEATTIE: Thank you-all for

being here today. To me, it's actually

really an honor to be here because I

applied to the University of North

Carolina twice and was rejected. So

I'm happy to be here today.

I have a basic premise that I think

people on the panel, in the room,

some will agree with some of what I

have to say and what we have to say.

And obviously there's going to be

debate about what we say. Because if

the answers are clear and there was

one right and one wrong, it would be

simple, and we could just hand out

bullet points and walk away.

I've got a basic premise that if you

can't win in rural areas, you're going to

be a minority voice in this country

because of how our system is set up.

That we have a system that leans

towards rural areas is where the power

is in much of our country. And it's a

lesson really that America learned

from Vietnam. You can't hold the

cities and lose the countryside and

expect you're going to win the war.

Now, what seems to have happened is

that we failed to articulate the

principles that are at stake, and faith

became a debate about gay marriage

and partial birth abortion, which is a

very narrow concept of right and

wrong. Americans really believe in

much more than that. Equal

opportunity. Kindness to strangers.

Treating others as we like to be

treated. Repaying our debts. Standing

up to bullies who prey -- who prey on

the weak. Those are ideals that

Americans agree with, and when we

articulate them, they agree with us.

We have to move away from the

image, the appearance, that we cater to

an intellectual elite, and we have to

overcome a fear of taking a stand for

something that may not be popular

with everyone but is important to us.

What happens is we do portray this

elitist attitude to blacks and to

Hispanics and to rural whites, and

they get that. And progressives, I

think especially in Washington, seem

to be unable to talk to people of faith,

so sometimes they fail to talk about

people of faith with respect. And

someone told me this recently, that if

we talked about blacks in the same

tone that we talk about people of

faith, in the same derisive tone, we'd

be called racists. And I think that

that's how some of the rural whites

feel, that they're discriminated against

and people don't understand.

Now, Republican success comes from

their mythology of small government

and personal wealth. They have this

icon, Ronald Reagan, that they

Page 8

attribute his -- they attribute any of

their ideals to, whether Reagan either

believed them ^4on the ^ or not.

Now -- and voters like this vision,

this positive grandfatherly figure and

the picture that is painted, even if that

picture that's painted isn't their own

reality. And they use one word to

describe progressives at every level,

and that's liberal. From the statehouse

to the White House they use the same

word, and it gets to be an echo

chamber. But we also play into their

hands. We talk about policy but not

the ideals behind what we stand for

and what we fight for and why we're

fighting. And we seem to be this

out-of-touch -- out-of-touch elite, and

to many Americans we are that party,

the out-of-touch elite. They're in the

party of the Republican party, the

party of the common person. In the

South obviously we face unique

challenges. Kerry won (sic) every state

in the South. He won (sic) 90 percent

of the counties that are majority white

from the South. And over the last 40

years, basically the South has

transformed from a racially divided

bastion of Democratic strength to

racially divided enemy territory. And

it's too simple to say that it's ignorant,

racist Southern whites who refuse to

vote their economic self-interest that's

the problem. It's this rhetorical

disconnect that is the problem. And

the rhetoric of belief and rhetoric of

ideal and a commitment to a higher

purpose and a higher power, it's not

something that a party can define. It's

something that people have to define.

And people have to stand for and

fight for, from individuals.

Now, our panel is going to look at

where voters are, how attitudes are

affecting them and how language is

affecting them. Again, some of them

are going to agree and expand on what

I said because it's brilliant, or show me

exactly where and why I'm wrong.

And at the end we will have time for

questions. And we're going to come

down -- come down, have the panel

-- starting with Susan.

And one of the things I would like to

point out, which I think for some

reason is unfair, that if you work in

politics you get a name in quotes.

Mudcat and Mac, and then the rest of

us don't get our name in quotes. So if

you think of one for us, we feel like

we'd like to earn one through the

panel. So Susan.

DR. HOWELL: Thank you. I have

to stand up because I'm short and

because I'm a college professor and I

have to stand up and talk.

In my six minutes here -- in my six

minutes, what I'd like to do is outline

what I think where the room -- okay.

My clicker -- is there room for a

progressive agenda in the South from

a public opinion standpoint. There's

bad news and there's good news. But

if by way of background, let's look at

what happened in the 2004 election.

Bush increased his share of the vote in

every Southern state except North

Carolina from 2000 to 2004.

(Applause.)

All right. The North Carolina

delegates. This increase went from 1

to 6 percentage points. So the

Republican, or the nonprogressive,

agenda gained -- certainly we can

Page 9

point to the reasons like the war and

Kerry's candidacy -- but Bush gained

in the South. Most importantly, there

was no Southern state where Bush did

worse in 2004 than in 2000. So where

did this come from? We know from

national exit polls that the change

from 2000 to 2004 was concentrated

among working class whites.

So recognizing the importance of this

group, I have identified the working

class whites in the South in a number

of national surveys, carved them out

and taken a look at their opinion. The

working class whites -- there are some

barriers obviously, we know them,

when you tie it to a progressive

agenda. On the positive side though

there is a strong populist culture to

build on. By populist, I mean an anti-

elitism and a belief in ordinary

working people as the real authentic

Americans. But of course, there are

barriers to a progressive agenda

among the working class whites. One

of which is there's little class

polarization among whites in the

South. If you look across polls,

there's not much difference between

what working class whites believe and

what upper middle class whites believe

in the South. And that obviously is a

problem when you're trying to create

an interest group based on economics

in the working class. Working class

whites do not perceive much in

common with African Americans, and

African Americans are, of course, part

of the heart of a progressive agenda.

So we have a race problem there and

then we have the lack of economic

polarization.

The populism of working class whites

in the South is conservative populism.

Conservative populism means the

enemy is government. The enemy is

regulation. The enemy of the liberal

-- cultural liberals, the Northeastern

elite, et cetera. So that's the bad news.

But more of the bad news, when we

look at the party identification of

working class Southern whites versus

the -- and I debated -- you know, I

just made it a dichotomy here.

Anybody without a college education,

I'm calling working class. With a

college education is everybody else.

So recognize that that's a fairly crude

separation.

But look at the largest group of

identifiers among those in the working

class are Republicans. So you have

this high degree of Republicanism in

the working class which is obviously a

serious problem for a progressive

agenda. Another problem and

illustration of conservative populism is

that part of the culture of the South is

that big government is a bad thing.

And you have here two-thirds of the

working class believe that the federal

government controls too much of

daily life. I don't know what they're

referring to, but they believe it.

Now, let's go to the good news.

Progressive populism. There is

antibusiness sentiment across the

board in the South. One of the

speakers last night referred to the

global corporate elite. There are many

people in the South, working class and

middle class, who believe that big

business does not serve the public

interest. The progressive agenda can

certainly build on recent events

highlighting business abuses,

Worldcom, Enron, et cetera, which I

don't think have been utilized to the

Page 10

maximum to appeal to the working

class. Not just in the South but across

the board.

More progressive populism. Southern

whites do not believe that the rich pay

enough taxes. Now, this is another

basis for a progressive agenda. There

is a feeling that upper income people

are getting away with something.

They have unfair advantages. And in

the area of health-care, we find that a

third of the working class whites in

the South cannot afford needed

health-care, which of course, is one of

the main issues of the progressive

agenda.

One of I think the problems with the

progressive agenda compared to the

conservative agenda is the question of

who will be the foe, who will be the

enemy? Republicans have -- just

talking political strategy here,

Republicans have used big

government and the Northeast liberal

elites, the media as their foe.

We can use something too. We can

use -- here's some ideas. The top two.

The corporate elites. The corporate

elites who have abused working

people, endangered their retirements,

the CEOs get away with their money

and stick it to the working people.

Wealthy people. There are -- there is a

populism of the working class can be

appealed to here, that higher income

people are not paying their way in this

society. They're getting too wealthy.

They have unfair advantages. They

can afford expensive colleges. They

don't pay their fair share into Social

Security.

Now those two -- the global enemies

there can be used to support an

agenda on Social Security and

health-care and college tuition. I

include college tuition here. This has

not been spoken about a lot, but we're

getting to the point in this country

where there's two classes of colleges.

Where there are the prestige -- it's

30,000 and up and it's 10,000 and

down. There's nothing in the middle.

And the working class people cannot

afford, without huge debt, or if they

have a genius kid, to go to what they

consider to be one of the better

colleges or a top college or a private

college.

Social Security is an issue where we

can argue -- and actually even

President Bush argued this -- I hate to

be quoting him about this, but that the

upper income people are not paying

their way. Health-care can play into

the corporate elite because the drug

companies and insurance companies

are driving up the costs.

One of my favorite issues on the

progressive agenda is that the

progressive agenda must embrace

religious voters. And this is a theme

that we've heard already this morning.

America is a religious country, not all

churchgoers are politicized to the

right. In fact, for many churchgoers,

the religious right is somewhat

offensive to them. The value that is

embodied in the Christian-Judeo

tradition that is progressivism is

humanitarianism. We do believe in

America that we are our brother's

keeper. We are a giving culture, we

are a helping culture. This is

particularly true of the South. And

this value has not been emphasized

enough in a progressive agenda.

Page 11

Another -- going to the culture wars, I

believe a progressive agenda can and

should take a strong stand against

violence, pornography, TV, video

games, Internet. Under the

Republican watch, which has been the

last, let's say, 20 years, this has gotten

worse. They're the ones that are

supposed to be against this stuff, but

there are primetime television shows

in the central time zone -- not here,

but central time zone -- that the

whole thing is based on sexual

innuendo. It's on at 8:00 at night.

Now, I'm not a prude, but as a

progressive agenda here, I think we

can stand up for families, we can

protect children, we can help parents

by taking a stronger stand. Also from

a political standpoint, who's going to

be against this? The Hollywood

crowd is not doing us any good here.

They're the ones making money off of

this stuff.

Okay. So in summary, the progressive

wedges and issues that I think can be

identified, all of which are perfectly

consistent with the culture of the

South. There is an abusive corporate

elite that's taking advantage of

working people, and the wealthy

people are not paying their way.

There's a widening gap between the

rich and the poor. America is

becoming a two-class society. And

the working class people increasingly

cannot afford health insurance or

adequate health insurance, and cannot

afford the colleges that they might

want to send their children to, and we

can take greater control over what's

available to our children on the

Internet and through video games, et

cetera. Thank you.

(Applause.)

MR. BEATTIE: What is the

emerging democratic majority?

MR. TEIXEIRA: Mr. Numbers

Teixeira?

MR. BEATTIE: Let's do numbers.

All right, Mr. Numbers.

MR. TEIXEIRA: I thought what I'd

do to just kind of help set up a basis

for discussion is look at some data

comparing 1996 to 2004. Because

things have changed a bit over the last

eight years. For example, in 1996

Clinton split the Southern vote with

Bob Dole 46 to 46 and carried five

Southern states, where I defined

Southern states as the Old

Confederacy plus Kentucky and

Oklahoma, which is pretty standard.

So split the Southern vote 46/46.

Now, in 2004, Kerry lost to Bush

57/42 in these 13 states, and he lost,

of course, every single Southern state.

So what happened? Well, part of it is

definitely kind of tied to what Susan

was saying. It's kind a white working

class story to some large extent. In

1996 Clinton lost white working class

voters in the South by about 16

points, which may not sound that

good, but think about how John Kerry

did in 2004. He lost white working

class voters in the South by 44 points.

That hurts. 72/28.

I think it's kind of hard to do well in

this region when you're losing white

working class voters by 72 to 28

percent. It's also interesting to look at

the shifts that have taken place

Page 12

spacially, different types of

communities in the South. What my

data show is that since 1996 there's

been a shift of 12 points away from

the Democrats in metro areas, looking

at the presidential level. There's been

a 24-point shift in what are called

micropolitan areas, which are rural

areas that are based around a small

city, a small urban area. They're

typically more denser -- denser, more

urbanized and different than the much

more straightforwardly rural areas.

This is a new definition that's

complicated by -- and if you want to

read more about it, you can look at my

Web site where I explained it in

excruciating detail.

But I think it's an important

distinction. Anyway, these

micropolitan areas, there's been a

24-point shift away from the

Democrats since 1996. And then if

you look at the nonmetropolitan rural

areas, which I think is what most

people really think of as rural areas,

where there's really no city to speak of

and it's pretty diffuse, pretty dimly

populated, there has been a 29-point

shift away from the Democrats since

1996.

And I think there's a couple ways you

can look at this. On the one hand,

you can say, well, since it's only been a

12-point shift away from the

Democrats in metro areas, that's really

where the Democrats can make some

headway, there's the least hostility.

Maybe that's where they should

concentrate. On the other hand, you

can look at the huge shifts in the

different types of rural areas and say,

well, you've got to stop the bleeding

there. Even though they're smaller in

terms of population, there's fewer

votes, you can't afford to have those

kinds of margins in rural and

micropolitan areas. So I think that's

just a subject one could debate. I

don't think there's a clear answer.

One thing that's worth noting though

is that the metro areas in the South

where all the growth is, if you look at

the popular vote, the national vote

since the 1980s, the Southern share of

the national vote in presidential

elections have gone up by 5 points, 5

percentage points. That's entirely in

metro areas. There's been no growth

at all in rural and micropolitan areas.

It's also interesting to note that if you

look at 2004, for example, that the key

political changes going from 2000 to

2004 weren't necessarily in these rural

and exurban counties where Kerry did

the worse, but rather were in metro

areas, particularly in medium-sized

metro areas. So they don't get, I

think, as much attention as they

should.

If you look at Florida, for example,

you can explain most of Bush's

increased margin in 2004 relative to

2000 by increased performance.

Better performance in areas, metro

areas, like Jacksonville Sarasota,

Pensacola, places people don't think

about, but are really important

politically because there's a lot of

voters there.

Yet another way to look at what's

happened since 1996 in the South is

by ideology. Now, you may not know

this, and why should you, but Clinton

actually carried Southern white

moderates in 1996 by 46/44. Now,

Page 13

where are all the Southern white

moderates going? we might well ask.

Well, in a sense they've gone nowhere.

And by that they're as numerous as

they've ever been. If you look at the

exit polls, the ideological distribution

in the South in 1996 was 17 percent

liberal, 44 percent moderate, 39

percent conservative. In 2004, 17

percent liberal, 43 percent moderate,

40 percent conservative.

So almost unchanged. And even if

you look among white voters in

particular, 1996 we have 15 percent

liberal, 43 percent moderate, 43

percent conservative. And then in '04

we have 14 percent liberal, 41 percent

moderate, 45 percent conservative.

It's only a slight shift over that

eight-year span. So what on earth

happened? Well, what happened is

that you go from 1996 where Clinton

carries Southern white moderates by a

couple of points to a 58/41 deficit by

Kerry relative to Bush in 2004 in the

South. So it's not that the Southern

white moderates have gone away, but

they are voting Republican. They

seem to trust the Republicans more

on some key issues. For example, if

you look at Southern white moderates

in 2004, 56 percent said they trusted

Bush to handle the economy, 44

percent said they trusted Kerry to

handle the economy. Then if you

look at terrorism, it's a wipeout. 69

percent said they trusted Bush to

handle terrorism. Only 36 percent

said they trusted Kerry.

So those are some facts to think

about, I think, maybe in some ways

they're not the most pleasant ones to

contemplate, but this is the kind of

thing we have to deal with. And I

think arguably, looking at these data,

you could say our target voter in the

South is a white moderate voter, and

perhaps in a medium-sized metro area.

And if the Democrats can just make

the choice between Democrat and

Republican, progressive and

conservative competitive again among

this group of voters, Southern white

moderates, moderate living in metro

areas, I think then you're a pretty good

piece down the road to making the

South competitive again for the

Democrats. We've got to push that

needle back in the other direction. So

hopefully that gives people something

to think about and I'll yield to the next

panelist.

MR. BEATTIE: Now one thing that's

so depressing when you look at the

presidential race is that Bush won

everywhere. But it's important to

realize in every state that Bush won,

Democrats were elected. There isn't a

state where there's not Democrats that

were elected. And in fact, there's

Democrats elected statewide in the

top of the ticket.

Mac McCorkle works with Governor

Easley, but he worked with several

governors working on policy and

connecting an agenda that a candidate

can talk about that is appealing to

voters at the local level. I think that

that's where, when we look nationally

there's this disconnect. But there are

people winning and successful in the

South, and we need to take those

lessons and adopt that language so we

can continue to win the South.

So, Mac, do you want to talk a little bit

about how you make that translation?

Page 14

MR. MCCORKLE: Can everybody

hear me? First I have to disclose that

the reason I'm known as Mac is

because my real first name is Pope and

I'm Presbyterian. So for obvious

ecumenical reasons I stay away from

that problem. So my name is Pope

McCorkle. I'm also a political

consultant, and as Andy has already

suggested, don't confuse me with the

facts. These are wonderful facts, and

I'll try not to be too factual and maybe

try to be a little bit more provocative.

I remember my son, we were driving

to Thanksgiving a couple of

Thanksgivings ago to my sister who is

married to a former Jesse Helms aide

who also now runs the North Carolina

Family Policy Council. So we always

have some very immensely interesting

Thanksgivings. Louis, my son,

unbuckled his seat belt. He was

talking to Chip, his older brother in

the car in the back, about whose

father and mother were lawyer,

doctor, Indian chief. And he peered

around the corner, looked at me as I

was driving, he said, Dad, are you

some kind of political insultant? True

story. I always remember that.

So what I try to do at these events

sometimes is maybe be a little

insulting, but only in a good natured

way to be a little provocative. I'm

originally from Memphis, Tennessee.

As Hodding Carter knows, that means

most of my relatives are from

Mississippi and Arkansas. And so I

span the South, but I also have always

thought of Chapel Hill and UNC as

the Great Oasis, the City on the Hill,

and I'm happy about being here and

living here. I'm a Sanfordite all the

way down. That doesn't mean that he

would agree with everything I think or

do, by any chance. But I had the

privilege to work with him and work

in his law firm. And I don't pretend

to channel him, as some people

suggested that you do of great figures

and political figures, but I do try to

carry on something of a conversation

in remembering the history that he

brought to the state.

I worked for a number of Southern

governors, that sometimes gets to be a

declining quotient of Democrats, but

have worked for Governor Bredesen

in Tennessee as well as Governor

Easley in North Carolina, helped steal

some elections in South Carolina and

Alabama in 1998 for Governor

Hodges and Siegelmann. But it's a

tough situation.

I thought what I would do today

rather than trying to talk about a

particular state is just draw a

composite of what the war is like out

there, and some of these comments

will have relevance to the state level.

Some of them will have relevance to

the national level. Again, I'm not

going to even try to be systematic.

But let me just start with North

Carolina, and I use that as pretty much

of a base. If this is the most advanced

outpost of liberalism in the South

there historically, maybe we should

just start there.

Here we won. We won 56/43 --

Governor Easley won 56/43 in a

situation where President Bush was

winning 56/43. We added seats in the

state legislature. And as Susan's

pointed out, our claim to fame is that

the Bush margin did not increase in

Page 15

this state from 2000 to 2004. So you

could say that, well, maybe we're

doing something right, whereas

Georgia went completely Republican

this time, and numerous other states

are going that way. And I think that

that's probably right. Governor

Easley's coming in a little while, and

you can hear from him on that. But I

also have some real concerns, and let

me just go over the positive.

In North Carolina at least, and I think

again in the South in general, still the

calling card for Democrats is

education, education, education.

Governor Easley came into the office

with a massive fiscal deficit he was

facing and still pushed forward on

Pre-K. We were -- I think Mississippi

and North Carolina were the only two

states without Pre-K for their at-risk

kids. We pushed forward with that

with class size reduction, a number of

education initiatives in the face of

massive fiscal deficit.

Also pushed forward with a very

innovative prescription drug program.

So those are all good progressive

calling cards. And now that the

election's over, we can plead guilty.

Governor Easley in his first year

decided to raise taxes. Now we tried

to claim that that's about 500 million.

Our opponents claim it's a billion. We

closed corporate loopholes. We raised

the income tax on the rich. We raised

sales tax. I plead guilty to all that now.

But we thought all along -- and we're

going to raise cigarette taxes in North

Carolina, it looks like this time. So on

the taxes score, that is -- we've got to

get that through.

So all of that is that taxes were

involved and we survived. So that's

good news perhaps. But let me just

tell you though in many ways that --

and I'm just going to create two

polarities here that aren't really fair to

either side. But let's talk about the

liberal, white, educated Southern mind

and let's talk about the popular

Southern mind. And let me just tell

you where I think there's some

massive disconnects. And I'm not

going to argue for a while at least pro

or con. I'm just going to tell you what

you feel out there when you're looking

at polling numbers, when you're trying

to communicate with people.

We've already hit on religion and

moral values. That's going to be the

subject of another panel, and I'm just

going to mention it. I think

everybody's real clear on this. Mr.

Jefferson's wall of separation, if it is

supposed to apply to faith and

politics, is not real in the South. That

is not what people believe, and the

idea that we're going to have a neutral

secular politics is simply

incomprehensible to most

Southerners.

So that's one disconnect, if we have a

view that -- if we can have a secular

or neutral politics, the wall of

separation doesn't exist. Now

whether that is not exactly church and

state, but in terms of faith and politics

and candidates expressing their

religious faith, that is a given. That's

an inevitable.

Another one that -- let me get to the

ones that aren't always mentioned.

Free trade. Again, I think the

educated position on that apparently,

of course, is free trade. It's something

Page 16

we have to accept. It's progress.

Everything's going to work out for the

best. And I think you're seeing that

people simply do not buy that. And

they're very worried about the

situation. I think that is part of the

problem with the white working class.

There are other problems that we can

get into, but free trade is another one

of those things that I think if people

simply do not buy, we have some

trouble.

Another example, incentives.

Business incentives. I understand

what Susan's talking about when she

talks about people being mad about

abusive corporations. Of course, they

can be used as people you would want

to get. But if populism gets in the way

of jobs, then people in the South will

reject that every time. The jail deal

that the Governor has been criticized

about is overwhelmingly popular

among people. It is only among again

the liberally -- maybe overeducated

mind that sees problems with

incentives, and I know they're good

policy arguments, but -- some good

policy arguments. I think they're

overdone. But in terms of people

needing jobs in this state and

throughout the South, the idea of

bringing in major corporations and

their spin-off ability, people believe in.

That doesn't mean they believe

corporations are always good citizens

and they're not suspicious of them,

but if our kind of populism gets in the

way of being a job producer and

generator, we've got -- we have

problems.

Then the whole thing -- the last one

that I would mention is the whole area

of taxes, revenue and spending. I've

said we've already pleaded guilty to

what we had -- to what the Governor

had to do to really save education in

many cases. And Lord knows in the

1990s we made a number of education

advances in this state that really

weren't paid for in many ways. Our

revenue base was hurt badly.

So there is obviously a question about

adequate revenue base that has to be

addressed, and taxes have to be part

of that picture. But the idea that we

can get further, especially in a place

like North Carolina, by relying on

taxing the rich has got to be subject to

serious question. We now have the

highest income tax rate in the South.

It is -- on personal and corporate.

The facts of the real matter is the

burden overall is relatively low, but in

terms of particular kicking up the tax

rate into a 10 percent corporate tax

rate or a 10 percent income tax rate on

individuals, that simply is not a

winning formula for people. That is a

shining ball that people can grab ahold

of, and we've got to accept that.

Now, the alternative the governor's

mentioned -- it's in almost every state

in the South -- the one thing we don't

have here is a lottery, and I know

there's a lot of educated opinion

against the lottery. Wildly popular.

The poor don't see it as a tax, they see

it as a choice. Less than half of the

poor play the lottery. There are a lot

of canards about how the lottery is an

unstable source of revenue. Tell that

to Georgia where they're almost at a

million dollars and tell that to anybody

who's looked at what happened to the

income tax rate -- income taxes in

North Carolina, how unstable that is.

So again, I think there's a huge

Page 17

disconnect between the liberal

educated mind of the South and the

popular mind.

Okay. On all those you can just say,

well, you know, practical politicians

like Governor Easley, we understand

that on one or two of them you've got

to depart from the elites and you've

got to be practical. Well, my concern

is those are too many. Oh, and one

other thing I left out. Spending. We

seem to act like that government

spending is just one of those things

that the reactionary conservatives

should worry about. The secret of

Governor Easley's formula to me in

many cases is he is pro education, but

also said he would veto anything that

-- any state spending that went larger

than the economy.

Those two elements unite in people's

minds, and they say he's pro

education, he's not pro government.

That works. And so the idea that we

can't focus on spending discipline in

the state of -- again is a real problem

in trying to connect with the popular

mind.

So on all those, there can be an

example of, yeah, practical politician's

got to desert the ship every once in

awhile, but the ship's too heavy.

There are too many things where

there's a disconnect in the popular

mind to be able to survive, I think,

going forward. And certainly these

problems are even greater in other

states than North Carolina.

What do we suggest? I think it's very

important that we get very serious

about reconnecting with people and

reconnecting where they are and not

think that this is a one-way street.

Perhaps because of the great success

we had in the civil rights days that,

you know, of fighting the good fight

that there's a sense in which the liberal

elites need to be the one-way

communicators telling the people in

the South what to do.

It's really got to be way more of a

two-way street now. The issues are

more complicated and I think we need

to reconnect with people. I also think

that one serious problem is that with

the Republicans, even in North

Carolina, the barbarians are at the

gate. The kind of moderate

Republican has died in the South, I

think, for a while. It's died in this

state. And the people who would

replace Democrats in this state are

very seriously reactionary in many

ways many who can really destroy a

lot. There was a time in this state

where you might not have said that,

that is true, so I think it's very

important we go forward. At the

same time what do we do? You

know, John Stuart Mill talked about

the best thing for liberals was to

engage and fight with conservatives in

an intellectual way. I think he talked

about Coleridge and Ruskin as the

people he read to get himself fired up,

thoughtful. And I feel like what we

do is we talk too much among

ourselves. We preach to each other.

We talk to the choir and we act like, to

be honest with you, the conservatives,

Southern conservatives are still all just

racists and they really don't have

anything to say. I think that's scary.

Now, they're wrong, in the end they're

wrong, of course, but they would help

us be more right. And I think we're

kind of running on fumes in many,

Page 18

many cases.

Let me throw out just some quick

ideas on these issues so I won't sound

so negative. On religion, I think,

again, I think it's bad form for us to

suggest in any way that religion should

be taken out of the public square.

Martin Luther King should have

taught us that religion can work for

progressives and the idea that we can

say, no, no, no, we can't do that and

that's really bad, is not -- I think the

conservatives have a point there.

David Price and a number of people

are going to be talking about religion.

I think David, who is a mentor of

mine, has a very eloquent way of

expressing theologically and politically

a progressive point of view, and I'm

not going to get into that. You'll hear

that later today.

On trade, I think this is very

important in terms of connecting with

working people. Somehow or

another, we've got to start working on

a way to be more direct about national

interest without being xenophobic.

You'll notice that Paul Samuelson

economics 101 and a number of

economists are starting to dispute a lot

of what their disciples have been

saying about how everything's going

to work out in a free trade regime and

we don't need to worry about people

being hurt.

Erskine Bowles talked a lot, tried to

bring into the conversation

place-based economic aid, not just

helping individuals but helping

regions. I think that's going to be very

important. Again, I'll just say in

general we can be populists when we

have abusive corporations but jobs,

jobs, jobs. And the idea that

somehow that the states are going to

be able to call a truce to this, I don't

know how they're going to be able.

And the idea -- we got lot of

comments, oh, well, Dell was really

going to come here anyway and Dell

wasn't going to go to another state,

please, now -- that's just not the way

things work. People want us to

compete and to get jobs in.

Fourth, I wish people, at least in

North Carolina, would reconsider the

lottery. I think a lot of the stuff that is

said about how progressive it is

applies to sales taxes way more than to

lottery. I think that you've got look at

what people want, and the idea that

we're going to be able to impose a

new regime of taxes and not -- and

skip the lottery, again, I think is going

to add to popular distrust.

I think the way to go on a more

progressive way of taxes would be to

go to earned income tax credits that

the Clinton administration successfully

expanded where you lower the load

on the working class. But the idea

that taxing the rich has a future and

that there's that much revenue in it is

subject to real dispute, to me.

Again, go back to -- I think the main

thing we could do is again follow John

Stewart Mills' example and talk about

really engaging conservatives and not

being to so hermetically sealed

ourselves and really engage in some of

their debates. I try to do that as much

as possible. Again, in the end I'm not

saying the conservatives are right, but

I think they've advanced to a certain

level of discussion on taxes and

spending especially that we need to

Page 19

take great care and caution and a lot of

sophistication towards. Thanks.

MR. BEATTIE: Thank you.

(Applause.).

MR. BEATTIE: I do want to

expound on one thing that Mac said

because it is very important. Right

now the Democrats are seen as the

party of no. That Republicans over

the last 20 years have been seen as

having more ideas. Even if they're the

wrong ideas, at least they were new

ideas. And that's something we have

to realize when we're combating them.

We need to fight on the playing field

of ideas and ideals, what we're going

to change and how we're to move

forward.

Mudcat, I'd like to ask you just kind of

-- listening to the discussion and

from your experience, what do you

view as the difference between

successful and unsuccessful candidates

in the South.

MR. SAUNDERS: Well, first off, I

want to say to Jennifer Palmieri, you

didn't tell me all these smart people

were here, the liberal educated part of

the South. I represent the popular

undereducated. The difference

between success and failure in the

South has to do with the successful

candidate gets more votes. You

know, we sit here -- I'm an angry

Southerner. I'm angry. You know,

when I see us start out this last

presidential election -- you know, I

don't get it. Why are we conceding

ground? We concede 20 states to start

out with, 164 electoral votes, just turn

our back on these people. We talk

about tolerance in the Democratic

party. I'm a white Southern male. I

am pro gun. Unfortunately for Mac, I

am against the lottery. It's class

distinctive. People buy lottery tickets

because they think it's their only way

out. The odds in Virginia of winning

a Pick Six are one in 7 million. The

odds of getting struck by lightning in

Virginia are one in 600,000. But the

odds of winning the lottery and

getting struck by lightning in Virginia

is 10 times greater than winning the

lottery. It is a tax on people who have

no other way.

Time magazine did a study -- and I'm

not going to get on the lottery -- but

on prayer. You know, more of us

pray now than we ever did, which is

good. I don't like the word religion.

There was no system of religion in

Jesus' teaching. His teachings were

purely spiritual and metaphysical.

That's the way it was. There's seven

volumes of Jewish law, 60 books to

the volume. 4,200 books of Jewish

law. They asked, Jesus, what are the

most -- are any of these laws

important? He said only two. Love

God with all your heart, mind and

soul and love your neighbor as

yourself.

Now, the Republicans believe love the

Cross. You know, they get all caught

up in the messenger and they don't

listen to the message. And I say, let's

take them on. They want to talk

about family values, we'll talk about

them.

(Applause.)

As I go north here to Henry County

-- and I'm not prepared for anything

Page 20

and I'm not going to talk a long time

because I want to hear your questions.

I want to hear what you-all have to

say. But we've got white males. Let's

take the average family in Henry

County, Virginia, where Globaltex is

located, other textile industries. We

can go all the way around here and

head South into South Carolina and

Georgia. We can go all over the

South. They took our damn jobs is

what they've done. But you've got a

fellow up in Henry County, Virginia.

This is what's happened to him. He's

lost his job, and he don't have any

health-care. His wife is working at the

Wal-Mart store with no benefits,

cleaning houses on the side. His kid's

sick. And he says, well, some judge up

in Massachusetts said two gay guys are

going to get married so I'm going to

vote for George Bush. Now what the

hell is wrong with that picture?

But the -- what we've got to do is our

party is cultural. You know, there's

been a lot of talk about policy and,

you know, this ain't about policy. This

is about getting through the culture.

The policy of the Democratic policy,

our message is and it's the reason I'm

still a democrat is because we're right.

And we've got to focus on that.

We've got to take these Republicans

on where they live. Like I say, if they

want to talk about family values, let's

talk about family values. What's the

family values in cutting the child

immunization program? What's the

family value to not fund No Child

Left Behind? What's the family value

of calling a damn ketchup a vegetable?

You know, let's talk about family

values. Let's get on it. Let's get into

the real message of spirituality and the

power of spirituality. And I like what

Susan said about -- you know, I pray

a lot. I'm a heathen and I cuss too

much, but I do. And I know this for

sure, and I'm sitting here today to tell

you this, God don't give one damn

about your political party. He cares

about your heart is what he does. And

most Southerners, you know, will

agree with that. And if our heart's in

the right place and we get through the

culture -- and that's all it is -- I mean

we've -- you know, you don't ever talk

about the -- you know, the last

election, very much, you know, going

into the next because you're judged by

your next. But in Virginia with Mark

Warner, in 2001, we got through that

culture is what we did. We got 51.4

percent of the rural vote. The first

Democratic candidate in Virginia to

grab a majority in rural Virginia in a

generation. But it was getting through

the culture. We're going to have to

make -- we're going to have to get

together. The problems of urban

America and the problems of rural

America are the same. So what do we

do? We let the damn Civil War stand

in between us, both of us do. And

I'm just as guilty. I'm a member of the

Sons of Confederate Veterans, and

I'm as guilty, you know, as anybody

else. I let culture get in my way.

We've got to have -- in this damn Civil

War, we've got to get past all this

stuff. They've used racism against us,

they've used every single issue that will

divide us. By God, let's come back

together. And I'm glad to be here.

(Applause.)

MR. BEATTIE: I want to touch a

little bit more on getting through the

culture and also to give Susan a

chance to talk a little bit more about

Page 21

(inaudible) to expand on what Mac

was saying. But opening up, what is

the way to get through culture in the

South? How do you connect with

voters? And we'll start with Susan and

open it up to the panel.

DR. HOWELL: Well, I certainly

agree with a lot of what's been said up

here. Culturally the South is

characterized by populism. And the

way -- one of the ways in which the

progressive agenda can appeal to that

populism is by appealing to working

people. I mean everybody thinks that

they're a working person. They're

working class, they're middle class.

Not many people believe that they're

unfairly advantaged and in the upper

crust. So we can appeal to working

people who feel the crunch, the

crunch of health-care, the crunch of

college tuition. And the facts that

demonstrate -- I want to ask Mac

about this in a minute -- that we are

becoming a two-class society. The

distribution of wealth in America is

getting worse from a progressive

standpoint. The gap between the

haves and the have-nots is getting

broader. And there is really not much

of a voice to defend the have-nots or

the people that are getting increasingly

squeezed at the bottom. That we have

to speak to that. And I think the

economic and the cultural things

mush together, they merge together.

That is, humanitarianism as a value are

giving culture our religiosity that -- I

agree with Mac that the separation

between church and state doesn't

really -- let's face it -- exist much in

America. I mean we are a religious

country. And to pretend that we can

have these policies that don't speak to

values is absurd. Policies are values.

They are expressions of values. And

providing health-care for lower --

health insurance for underprivileged

people or even for working people,

working-class people. Protecting

children from pornography and

violence. Improving public schools.

All these are moral, Judeo-Christian,

humanitarian issues. And they merge

with the values of America and they

merge with the values of the South. I

don't see the disconnect between the

economic and the moral as much as

some of my colleagues do.

MR. BEATTIE: Ruy, what are your

thoughts on the culture and how do

you get through the clutter?

MR. TEIXEIRA: I'm tempted to say

that it beats the hell out of me. But I

would -- I mean I think it's a tough

problem because I think the --

judging from what people have been

saying on the panel, there's two

different ways to approach this in a

way. One is -- sort of in the most

extreme form, one is just to say

Democrats are progressive or

whatever, we basically already have the

right policies, it's a matter of the

rhetoric. It's matter of how they're

framed. It's a matter of how we

present ourselves culturally. That's

one position.

And then another position might be,

well, you know, maybe that's

important but we actually have to have

something new to say that might

actually capture people's imagination,

the kinds of things Democrats and

progressives tend to say don't really

grab people. People aren't that

interested in them. Which of those is

true and maybe both are true, I don't

Page 22

know. Because the broad experiment

is really what we're talking about here.

If it's rhetoric is a problem, if Mark

Warner just runs for president in 2008

and says exactly what Democrats have

been saying and progressives have

been saying for the last 10 years, is

that enough? Because he'll talk about

things in a different way, how things

are working for him, it will be a

different approach. Is that --

MR. SAUNDERS: That's not a

guarantee.

MR. TEIXEIRA: So that's kind of

the debate in my head about how to

approach this. Is it really all about

rhetoric or is there actually like a

component here, actually has

something to say.

MR. MCCORKLE: Let me just

answer the first culture question. I

think Mudcat's exactly right. I think

that's the initial thing that has to be

addressed. And even though I do

think Governor Warner would be a

wonderful senator, presidential

candidate, and is a good friend of

Governor Easley, I would point out

that Governor Warner just buys and

rents NASCARS. Governor Easley

drives NASCARS, and sometimes

even wrecks NASCARS. And that

had nothing to do with his popularity.

He did not go up in the polls with

that. That's a total myth. No --

MR. SAUNDERS: Is Governor

Easley running for president?

MR. MCCORKLE: No. I was just

pointing out a difference. They're all

good friends.

MR. SAUNDERS: I want the one

that will win. That's the number one

rule.

MR. MCCORKLE: Governor

Warner would be a wonderful

president. But one way Governor

Easley did get through the cultural

barriers is he does drive NASCARS.

He does speak explicitly -- in his

rhetoric he does cite Bible versus, but

he probably tries not to cite the -- to

be a -- do it ostentatiously. But you

see it in his rhetoric, in his State of the

State speeches on numerous occasions

he has done that. And then I think

the other thing that he has that cuts

through is that he's a former

prosecutor and that people relate to

that. And he approaches government

I think legislators think sometimes too

much like a prosecutor. But I think

again that people understand that and

relate to that and have a strong tie to

that.

Just what was being said here, I think

though after the cultural we still have

another challenge, and that is -- and I

hate to use the dreaded boring word

of policy, but let me just talk about

taxes. We still have to find a way in

the end if we're going to attract people

to find a way how we're going to pay

for education and all the investments

we want to make. And the idea that

just getting over driving NASCAR and

just doing these -- and speaking

religious verses and having the right

language, that's not enough. We do

have to deal with the issue of how

we're going to pay for the progressive

things that we're talking about.

MR. TEIXEIRA: So how do we do

it?

Page 23

MR. MCCORKLE: Well, we won. I

think it's a real question. I think,

again, we have to go back and maybe

if people don't want a lottery here --

of course, they have it in the other

states -- a progressive consumption

tax. People need to look at those kind

of concepts where the burden is

lowered on the poor through earned

income tax credits and other tax relief

measures directed towards the poor.

And that we start thinking about even

higher sales taxes which are huge

revenue generators. The idea in a

Southern state or any state being able

to depend on the income tax again is

the progressive fulcrum, where are

you going to be able to pay for things?

Just look at the numbers. The money

is not there. How can you win -- do

you think you can win any race in the

United States with a 10 to 15 percent

income tax rate in the state? Pretty

hard to see how you're going to do

that and pay for health-care and

education and everything else. So

these are the kind of issues we need to

deal with. We need to deal with

culture, no question, but we have to

deal with some issues on the policy

side as well.

MR. BEATTIE: I think that that's an

important point is that rhetoric alone

will never do it and rhetoric has to be

credible for our candidate. I mean

every individual has their own beliefs,

things they do, their hobbies and you

can't adopt someone else's hobby.

You have to be true to yourself, and I

think that that can be a problem when

you focus on rhetoric over substance.

You have to believe in what you think

is right and wrong, and you have to do

the things that you naturally do

because voters watch a lot of TV, and

you can't fake it. You've got to be

who you are. And if you do things

that connect, then you should do

those. But if it ain't natural to you,

you shouldn't be doing them. Any

other comments from the panel

before I open up to questions?

DR. HOWELL: I'd like to -- go

ahead, Mudcat.

MR. SAUNDERS: I like Mike Easley.

I hope, certainly hope Mike Easley,

when he runs for president, doesn't

talk about raising taxes because one

thing for sure --

MR. MCCORKLE: We'll try not to.

MR. SAUNDERS: -- if you want to

hit a voter in the heart, aim for his

wallet and you'll get him every time.

But, you know, I think this culture

thing, we've got to get it. I mean

when I got to Washington -- and, you

know, I'm sitting down at home and,

hell, was minding my own business.

And an old boy called me one

morning, as I went up to get an egg

sandwich, and I ended up in the

middle of a damn presidential

campaign.

So -- but I do know this. That as I

look around here, there's people from

all over the South. And I mean let's

get to the crux of it. This gentleman

sitting next to me. He's, you know, an

outstanding, you know, Southern

pollster. I think that it is pretty

simple. What happened to us is we

lost the white male. You know, I

mean we can ponder over numbers.

And we didn't lose them because of

policy, we didn't lose them because of

Page 24

the principles of the Democratic party,

which were right. We lost them

because we got out of touch with

them. I mean, you know, we start

talking about worker retraining

programs. I mean what does Bubba

sit there, what does he think? He said,

Jesus, they want me to go to school.

Hell, I didn't go the first time.

(Inaudible). You know, it's a slap in

the face. You've got to -- you know,

you've got to understand how to talk

to him. And the first thing that we've

got to understand is we've got to

accept the truth. And the truth is,

where I come from and where many

of you come from, if you're white and

you live in the South, it is socially and

culturally unacceptable to be a

Democrat. And that is the truth and

that is the reality. You can ask these

people sitting next to me, the smart

people, and they'll tell you the same

thing. I'm a soldier is all I am. But

we've got to accept that as reality.

We've got to work together. We've --

and I mean arm in arm, and get

through the right stuff. The guns, I

mean, Christ -- and the gay issue

obviously. I think that I crafted a

great position on gay marriage. I am

absolutely opposed to gay marriage,

but I'm also absolutely opposed to

marriage between a man and a

woman. I mean there are ways to --

MR. BEATTIE: Susan, do you want

to follow that?

DR. HOWELL: I think we need to

absorb that for a moment.

MR. BEATTIE: I'd like to open it up

to questions. Please, if you can, when

you -- there's some microphones.

Stand up and we'll give you a

microphone. Please say your name

and where you're from and also please

ask a question. We want to try and get

as many people as we can.

MS. ANNETTE HOLLOWELL:

Good morning. My name is Annette

Hollowell. I'm from the William

Winter Institute for Racial

Reconciliation at Ole Miss,

Mississippi. This is the Mississippi

table.

MR. BEATTIE: Welcome.

MS. ANNETTE HOWELL: Thank

you. I wanted to just kind of touch

back to what you were talking about in

your presentation, Dr. Howell, about

how there's a disconnect between

white voters and seeing that they have

a lot in common I guess with black

voters. And I'm kind of curious, what

are some of your ideas as far as ways

to close that gap? Because we've

talked about culture and reaching the

white Southern male, but how do we

make them realize that we all want the

same things out of life and that all of

our interests, there's one. Anybody,

please.

MR. SAUNDERS: This was a -- I

don't want mean to jump in on your

question. But it's absolutely

preposterous to me that the problems

of urban America and the problems of

rural America are the exact same.

Now think about that. And I mean

we're struggling over racial

divisiveness when our problems are

the same. We don't have

opportunities for our kids. Our

education system is crummy. Our

infrastructure is crumbling. And the

problems of urban America and rural

Page 25

America are the same, and we never

articulate it because we can't sit down,

we can't get together because we don't

accept each other's culture.

DR. HOWELL: To address that, I

think that what the progressive agenda

has to do, and just being, you know,

bluntly political, we have to

deemphasize the racial angle, and

emphasize the advantage,

disadvantage angle, which is the

takeoff on what he just said, that

poverty's poverty. It doesn't matter

what color you are. And that this is

what we have to deal with. We have

to deal with a widening gap between

the haves and the have-nots, and the

have-nots are mixed of all colors.

And so dealing with that agenda has

to be in that rhetoric, not in the civil

rights rhetoric.

MR. BEATTIE: I just want to point

out that I think that one of the

problems that Democrats do that I

think exacerbates the problem, and

that is there are times when I think

Democrats -- white Democrats

communicate with blacks simply

saying civil rights are the most

important issue, as if health-care and

jobs and education, the common

issues, aren't important to blacks. It's

the same issues, and we need to talk

about them the same, not like they're

different issues. I think we -- we -- we

exacerbate that problem sometimes.

Next question in the back.

MR. LARY GRIFFIN: Thank you.

Can you hear me okay? My name is

Larry Griffin. I'm going to be talking

later today. I teach at UNC. And just

one question. I was very intrigued and

informed by everyone's comments.

One thing I did not hear anything

about, and I'm not sure it's any longer

pertinent, but I think it might be, trade

unions for working class folks. The

South is the least unionized of all

America. North Carolina leads the

country in working union free. One

in 34 North Carolinians is a union

member. From the 1930s through the

'60s and into the '70s, trade unions

were the one thing that brought blacks

and whites together on economic

interests.

We can talk about jobs and we ought

to talk about taxes. Should we also

talk about how we can organize

working class people in terms of their

economic position and their economic

interests?

(Applause.)

MR. TEIXEIRA: Yes, they should do

that. And I think this is a very

important goal for the progressive

movement in general, not just in the

South, that reversing the trends for

deunionization is critical, but it's going

to take awhile. So even if it becomes

more of a substantive goal for national

progressives than progressives

everywhere. In the meantime

however, most people we're going to

have to reach aren't in unions. That

includes working class people, white

working class voters and in particular

who are among whom Democrats are

getting totally hammered in the South

are overwhelming nonunion.

So if you want to reach them in the

short-term, and probably the

medium-term too, we are talking

primarily about reaching white

Page 26

working class voters, not --

MR. MCCORKLE: In North

Carolina, even though we are I think

still the most -- the least unionized

state, the labor organizations have

played an important part in the

coalition in -- and probably are some

of the most realistic and pragmatic

political players in the Democratic

coalition. At the same time, I would

have to echo the same thing, that

given where we are now and where we

have historically been, the idea that

that's going to have an immediate

impact on changing the political

dynamic, it is tough.

I mean I know that Andy Stern at

SCIU and a number of the other labor

leaders are in an internal debate now

about where to go, and I think that's

important. But again, that might be

part of the new emerging Democratic

majority in many -- in some decades

from now. But just in terms of

immediate help, I don't know that the

numbers are there or that the numbers

can change. Somewhat like I think

Superintendent Lee said last night --

again, I'm dealing with a short-time

horizon. I'm dealing with the next

election. And probably in the

long-range view there's some real

possibilities there. But in the

immediate, I think it's hard to see it.

DR. HOWELL: I'd also like to add to

that that I think that going back to the

forum that unions have had in the

past is not going to happen. That that

is something we are -- we are passed

-- in the global economy, we are

passed that. And industry based

unions, I don't think we're going to

see that in the near future, the

revitalization of them. That it has to

be based more on your place in the

economic order. That crosses

industry. And there's huge numbers

in the new economy, as Mudcat

pointed out, are not in unions.

Service workers, health-care, clerical,

all of these people are not going to be

unionized in the near future. We just

have to reach them where they are.

REVEREND JIM MCDONALD:

Reverend Jim McDonald, African

American Leadership Council and

board member for People for the

American Way. I want to get to the

culture issue again and see if I can take

it to another level. The South has also

been identified as the Bible belt. And

it seems that in being identified as the

Bible belt, the evangelicals of the

South have been able to steal the

symbols and the language of our

Judeo-Christian tradition, and in so

doing, has created a culture of fear.

There are times when I go to my

closet that I look and see if Osama

Bin Laden is in there. And this

election and many state and local

elections seem to have been based

newsouthernstrategies.org

Sunday, May 24, 2009

newsouthernstrategies.org

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me