PatrickG38
Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline
|
The election of Barack Obama has made certain fault lines in our country appear more vividly and while it is not 1859 by any means, it appears that there is a large region of the country that is committed to ignorant reactions when confronted with the case of the first black president. Many contemporary historians have argued the uniqueness of the South has been fading with the region’s mass commercialization, the embrace of consumer culture by the region and the proliferation of national media. After all, a strip mall in South Carolina bears an uncanny resemblance to one in a Northern suburb. The election of Barack Obama has made clear that regionalism is alive and the South remains distinctive in an exceedingly negative way. Indeed, absent the South, the United States would be a far more educated, progressive and humane country. While this appraisal seems harsh, it is electorally inescapable. Indeed, absent the large African-American population, the region would appear even more reactionary in its politics.
The front page of the New York Times almost a year ago ran a fascinating article on how David Vitter, of DC Madame fame, is the favorite in his race for re-election because his opponents were supporters of Barack Obama, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11vitter.html?_r=1&ref=politics as well as an equally relevant article on Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and the lack of universal condemnation in his district, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/politics/11wilson.html?ref=politics. These stories coupled with the simply shocking poll results that a majority of Southerners (53%) don’t accept that President Obama was born in the United States, indicate a region addicted to ignorance and a threat to the future of democratic governance in America. The advertisements in support of Senator Vitter actually have a picture of a hippie on them, that nearly extinct species that in large numbers abandoned their youthful anti-establishment views and embraced cocaine, Wall Street and uber-capitalism. Because the South is the focal point of the anti-Obama rhetoric, it becomes impossible to discount the role of race in what most often appears to be unthinking criticism. Some principled conservatives might argue that much of the opposition is simply a philosophically consistent dedication to decentralized government and a healthy fear of powerful government and growing deficits.
The deficit argument seems patent nonsense. The Southern conservatives did not become the least bit overheated over Reagan’s record deficit spending or George W. Bush’s reckless fiscal policy that turned surpluses into record deficits (most of the deficits now allegedly animating these tea-bag morons, are a direct legacy of President Bush). The deficit is clearly cover for other motivations. As far as a small government philosophy providing principled opposition to Federal expansion, that falls apart under historical analysis. Putting aside the irony that the two regions of the country most dependent on Federal largess are the most opposed to the ‘government,’ we must ask how the South came to be so opposed to Federal powers. At virtually every step, Southern opposition to Federal powers was related to retaining a system of white superiority. Historian William W. Freehling has established fairly conclusively that even the nullification controversy regarding the Federal Tariff (supported by Calhoun originally) was a controversy about slavery. Indeed, when the Federal Government’s power could be brought to bear in favor of white supremacy, as with the Fugitive Slave law of 1850, Southerners objected little to the large expansion of Federal power.
Southern politicians objected little to the radical expansion of federal control over individual lives brought about by Prohibition. Yet, some of the exact same southern politicians pled States Rights while opposing woman suffrage through the 19th Amendment, as they were fearful that Federal involvement in voting rights would interfere with their disenfranchisement of African-Americans. Southern fears of big government waned again during the New Deal as long as the deal would not include backs (this is why domestic workers were not covered by Social Security initially).
Southern resistance to big government waxed after Brown v. Board of Education because this decision again represented a threat to the Southern system of white supremacy. This resistance grew as the federal government increased efforts to enfranchise African-Americans. Of course, the South rarely objected to increased federal spending on defense and arms as that did not implicate the system of white supremacy and provided jobs and economic activity.
While the racial problem is not exclusive to the South, the region retains a distinctiveness as revealed by the inexplicable agitation following President Obama’s election. You can disagree with the President’s policies, but to fail to acknowledge his legitimacy (the most decisive election since Reagan’s second term), his grace, class and fundamental decency reveals a deeper cultural pathology. He might be wrong on particular policies, but to view him as a threat to America is a reflection of the insecurity of the protesters confronted with a President who finally doesn’t look like them. The question is how does the rest of the nation deal with a region still so out of synch with American values.
|
the Burden of Southern History (apologies to C. Vann Wo... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread