A fellow southerner sent me this Washington Post article about how southerners view the Presidency of Barack Obama.
While he was jokingly incredulous about the actual existence of the article’s main protagonist, it roughly encapsulates the feelings of the white south. A range of emotions, from blaming general (but not specific) racism, to a general belief that Obama doesn’t “understand” the south.
Jeff has talked about the perceived declension of the south’s political power, but Barack Obama is the first successful presidential candidate since 1960 not from the south/sunbelt, and at the same time, some of the people mentioned in this article are concerned about the perceived lack of southern influence within Obama’s cabinet/inner circle.
What is interesting about this article is that the main guy was a
“52-year-old farmer is a conservative Democrat who bet on Republican John McCain and lost, a description that would apply to many in the white South. Now Loewer wonders about his place in Obama’s America.”
This is an old school Democrat, the very very last of the New Deal coalition in the south who survived salvos from the right in the guise of Goldwater, Wallace, and Reagan. His way of life (as an individual farmer) is only possible in the United States today because of FDR’s AAA.
Besides, I guess, general cultural concerns about Obama as president, Loewer loves guns, and is worried about Obama’s stance on gun control. <sarcasm >Because for a country with a tanking economy and an unpopular occupation of middle east countries, gun control is at the top of his list</sarcasm>.
But, after last Tuesday, life has continued much as it did before for essentially everybody. Guns are more expensive (think about this, the NRA is the top culprit in spreading around propaganda about Obama’s restrictive gun control–and with nothing happening, the cost of guns and ammo has skyrocketed. I think gun owners have been had; toyed with the conservative’s policies of fear)
Sunday, 25. January 2009
Law,
Thanks for bringing yet another in this endless line of stories about “Obama vs. the South”. With this last addition (still showing up long after we first noticed this trend) I’m convinced this is a relatively important sub-story about the presidency (along with his dog search, need for a blackberry, etc.). I don’t know much about how the media works, but for the life of me I don’t know why they keep hitting this storyline.
Here’s my thoughts:
1) “First successful presidential candidate since 1960 not from the south/sunbelt”? That’s not even remotely true. Former presidents, not-at-all-from-the-South, since 1960: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush. That’s four out of the eight former presidents since 1960.
And that list is quite generous. G.W. Bush may have been raised in Texas, but his parents were both from long-lived New England families, and he went to Yale. If you include him as non-Southern, then you have 5 out of 8 presidents.
2) I don’t know how to separate how much of this “Obama v. South” stuff is actually true, or just media hype. I suspect the latter, however, since most cases of these stories seem to ignore blatantly contradictory evidence to their main argument. If you want a news story to show anything about the South, then you can find someone who will fit your idea (It’s a third of the country after all. Imagine if the three of us were used as representatives of “the South”?).
Still, even if it isn’t true – a question remains that I raised earlier: why keep pushing this story line? What’s driving news writers to think this is a good story to print? One of the themes that shows up across these stories is Obama’s “urbanism,” and I wonder if this isn’t what drives people to think the South is opposed to him? Or better yet, could it be that urbanity is something news writers in Washington pride themselves on, so they go looking for its opposite (rurality) in a mythical “South”?
Reply to jlundy
Sunday, 25. January 2009
I generally agree, especially on the hype–and particularly about guns, but allow me to defend myself on your first comment.
One, I said south/sunbelt- so if you include southern california, that takes care of Nixon. Reagan was raised in Texas and SoCal as well.
Two, Gerald Ford was never a successful Presidential candidate. He never won any national election, as either a presidential or vp candidate. He lost the only one he participated in in 1976. But, I guess since you live in Michigan, that might convince you to give him more credit than he is due.
Three, The Bush controversy continues, sure. But, Bush I moved to Texas in 1948, so by the time he became VP in 1980, he had spent more time in Texas than he had in Massachusetts. This is in large part a good example of geography versus culture in the “who is southern” debate.
Besides, look at who loses these elections
Kerry (Mass)
Gore (Tenn)
Dole (Kansas (again, sort of))
Bush I
Dukakis (Mass, I think)
Mondale (MN)
Carter (GA)
Ford (MI)
McGovern (SD)
Humphrey (MN)
Goldwater (AZ)
A number of these guys are also southerners (or from the sunbelt), and the ones that aren’t are generally the ones who get their asses kicked (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dole)
Reply to lbowdish
Thursday, 29. January 2009
Well, I’ll buy a couple of those (you did specify more broadly than the South, afterall). I guess historians must be more careful with their words than us Sociologists.
Reply to jlundy