Democrats and Demographics

One of this richest traditions in Americana is the people in the South not getting along with everyone else, let alone each other. First, white Southerners insisted on enslaving black Southerners, then they insisted on putting up their dukes when people tried to get them to stop. But stop they did, picking fights thereafter with the general progress of the nation, which wasn't real thrilled with the South either. Eventually, the South's enthusiasm for evangelical Christianity may have reached a tipping point or something, because the social conservatism it transmits to the rest of the country is getting overwhelming.

During the post war period, Southerners have basically been Congressional kingmakers: whichever party dominated Southern Congressional districts dominated Congress. This was the Democrats up through 1994, at which point it became the Republicans. The net effect was that the ruling party was always disproportionately conservative on social issues because of the large role played by Southerners in its coalition.

Well that might be about to change. When Democrats take control of the House in the near future, there is basically no chance they will hold a majority of the Southern Congressional districts. People, specifically this guy Schaller, are starting to talk about why Democrats indeed should start ignoring the South. Much of the argument seems to boil down to this: who needs those jerks anyway?

Traditional libertarian Republicans have been getting more and more sick of the ideologically insane tripe spewing forth from the ultra-conservative evangelical wing of the party, and it is turning some key blocs blue. To wit, the Mountain West region in general is seeing a resurgence in support for Democrats in New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming, and especially Montana and Colorado. Assuming the transition goes smoothly, and Democrats effectively trade the South for the Mountain West, how smart is that?

The MyDD article from above mentions that the South is slated to add 19 Congressional seats over the next 30 years, whereas the Southwest is slated to add 12. Well, despite that growth, the majority of the country still would not be living in the South. Perhaps more important, though, is the length of that time line. I foresee issues like global warming, which will make it even more necessary than it already is to have air conditioning in Arizona and Mississippi, and peak oil, which will make it prohibitively expensive to run an air conditioner, throwing a huge monkey wrench into those works. So basically I think the comparative growth concern is not one that should be factored into Democratic coalition building.

That leaves us with the medium-term wisdom, and on this count I think the idea of ceasing to meet Southerners half-way is a good idea. George Lakoff has shown that pursuing progressives' partisan agenda is actually the best way to build a larger coalition and more successful movement anyway, so why bother accepting ideological impurities just to please that bunch of jerks? The one note of caution I would sound is that it's not worth completely pulling out of the South. It would be great to stop accounting for its conservatism by moderating policies, but keep the ground troops there and keep trying to push the agenda there. Abandoning it wholesale will make it very difficult to get back, if it should ever become desirable to do so, and it would be unwise to completely abandon all those dedicated Democrats who do persevere there.