Wednesday Interview: Tom Schaller
This weekend, the Obama campaign announced that it was going to focus its efforts on a state-by-state campaign to get delegates… especially in South Carolina. That made us think, is South Carolina really a place a Democrat would want to spend money after the primaries? What kind of role will the South play in the next election? So for this week’s Wednesday Interview, we went to the man who
knows – Tom Schaller. Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, is the author of Whistling Past Dixie, a book that goes straight to the heart of this matter.
From his website:
In Whistling Past Dixie, Tom Schaller issues a transformative challenge to Democrats: Build a winning coalition outside the South.
The South is no longer the "swing" region in American politics -- it has swung to the Republicans. Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column. The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates.
In Whistling Past Dixie, Tom Schaller issues a transformative challenge to Democrats: Build a winning coalition outside the South.
The South is no longer the "swing" region in American politics -- it has swung to the Republicans. Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column. The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates.
Veracifier: So where did you get the idea for this book?
Schaller: I was of the mindset, as the conventional wisdom held, that the Democrats needed to figure out their problems in the South. Gore had lost every one of the southern states, including Tennessee, and my friend – who went to Chapel Hill – said they should abandon the south and I thought, that’s not possible. Then I started thinking about it, and the more sense it made.
If you look at the 2000 and 2004 maps, they look like a reverse of the 1800 and 1896 elections Karl Rove talks about all the time. Even Teddy Roosevelt won without the southern states and he won by a comfortable margin. Why can’t they do it today?
By Thomas F. Schaller
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page B01
Solid Republican victories in the Kentucky and Mississippi governors' races, coupled with Howard Dean's clumsy overture to Confederate flag-waving Southerners, have raised anew the question of whether Democratic presidential candidates can compete in the South.
They can't.
And that’s when I wrote the article that appeared in the Washington Post. You know, it ran on the front page of the Washington Post Sunday section, and I got a lot of emails from people I now know pretty well. I realized I’d sort of struck a nerve.
Veracifier: So what was the response to that? Earlier, when you learned I'm Southern, you said you're surprised that I’m not upset with you after reading your book. Are Southern democrats you know upset by what you found?
Schaller: Well, the Southern democrats used to be the entirety of the party. And then they were the majority of the party. And then they were consequential, if not pivotal, with the decision. And then they had blocking power, and then, increasingly, they had none of it. There are 46 Democratic senators [out of 51] from outside the South. And while they might pick up a seat in Alaska or Minnesota with retirements, at some point the Democrats are going to have 50 non-southern senators. Compare that to the height of legislative dominance at the height of the Democratic party and you can’t do anything without soliciting their opinion. And now you’re at just about 50 non-Southern senators, so for Southern Democrats who want to be relevant in the South… you don’t have to be Euclid with your socks and shoes off to figure out the math on this.
Veracifier: And it’s been clear since the ’04 election we’re dealing with a rock-solid Republican South, no room for Democrats. What do you think it is about that region that makes it such a strong, cemented voting bloc?
Schaller: Southern voters - particularly southern white voters – make firm decisions and they tend to stick to them. It was a solidly Democratic South for years… Once they switched to the Republicans, it was strong for one side or the other. Even third party voting is low in Southern sates. Third party voting for Perot in Western states, say versus Southern states? Perot support is far, far greater out West than it was in the South. Southerns don’t show much support to third party or independent candidates. And Dixiecrats were replaced, retired, or beaten by Republicans. And now you have a Republican South.
Veracifier: How does this affect us today?
Schaller: One of the amazing things about Bush’s support nationally is that he’s had 33 to 34 percent, but he’s had somewhere between 50 and 60 percent support among white Southerners. That means he’s got 27 or 28 percent in the rest of the country. They literally support him at twice the rates the rest of the country does, so they’re the anomaly, they’re the outlier. So for all the talk that the Republicans are out of touch with the rest of the country, it’s really the white South that’s out of touch with the prevailing opinions of the rest of the country.
Veracifier: What are they issues that matter to them that make them so markedly different?
Schaller: Some of them are war issues, social issues, cultural issues, some are obviously affirmative action or race related issues. Public spending issues... For the moment, the confluence of race and religion particularly have always made the South a little unique, particularly the white South. But migration of non-native Southerners and immigration to the South, especially Latinos, will change this, but in the meantime, Southern exceptionalism will exist. That will fade in the long haul, and in thirty years, the South will look more like the rest of the country than it does today.
Look for more from Schaller as we examine American voting habits by region throughout the Fall.
