A strange thing is happening in the South. When Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers won their special elections in, respectively, Louisiana and Mississippi, the Republicans complained that they they ran as Republicans. This wasn’t strictly true. They ran as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration candidates. That made them seem like Republicans. But they also ran against the war and they ran against corporate welfare, and they ran against free trade agreements. They ran on increasing federal funding on infrastructure and education, and they ran on nixing No Child Left Behind. On many issues they were fully in line with the Democratic Party, and on some they were more in line with the Progressives than the Blue Dogs.
On Tuesday there was a startling upset in the Democratic primary for South Carolina’s senate seat (held by Lindsey Graham). Lawyer Michael Cone was expected to win, but he lost by a thousand votes to an unknown airline pilot named Bob Conley. The election was so close that they will do a recount. But, assuming Conley wins, we’ll have another candidate that falls roughly into the Cazayoux/Childers mold. And it could spell trouble for Lindsey Graham. Here are some of the issues that Conley is running on.
- Putting an end to predatory loans.
Energy conservation and alternative energy development.
End the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home.
Punishing corporations and companies that use illegal immigrant labor, closing down our borders, and restricting even legal immigration. No ‘amnesty’ bill.
No new free trade agreements.
No more Wall Street bailouts.
Remove many of our troops stationed overseas, starting with South Korea.
Pass Sen. Webb’s GI Bill.
Here’s some more:
Conley, a North Myrtle Beach Democrat who voted for Ron Paul in South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, says he believes his opposition to abortion rights, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and opposition to illegal immigration strike the right chord for voters here.
“I can grab a significant portion of the pie that would otherwise not vote Democrat,” he said in a recent interview.
Conley should know. He unsuccessfully ran for the Indiana Legislature as a Republican in 2000. Even though he voted for longshot Paul, Conley says he walked away from the Republican Party years ago out of frustration over trade and immigration policies and the Iraq invasion. He says his Catholic background has given him “sanctity of life” views that apply equally to fetuses and innocent Iraqis and contends the GOP does not own traditional Christian values.
“That party can go to the devil,” Conley said. “There’s a big myth out there that there aren’t pro-Life Democrats. In the South generally, but especially in the state of South Carolina, you can’t go out and attack traditional Christian values, traditional Christian morals and expect to carry the day.”
There’s plenty to like and plenty to dislike. And there’s no sugarcoating the racial element in this new Southern populism.
Conley refers to likely GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain as “Juan McCain,” for advocating last year’s failed immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship. He calls Graham McCain’s “Mini-Me.”
But just when you are feeling totally repulsed, he comes at you with this:
He’s also critical of Graham for being a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq and what he calls the continued occupation.
“The American people are paying for this occupation. We have corporations who are just milking this cash cow,” Conley said. “This occupation has to end.”
He believes the military should determine how to pull out responsibly, while the administration talks with leaders in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran to “ensure a full out bloodbath doesn’t erupt” when U.S. troops leave.
“That’s their back yard. They should be the folks who are taking care of what’s going on there,” he said. “How would we feel if Communist China invaded Quebec?”
I’m less interested in Conley as a candidate than I am in this new brand of Southern Democrat. Conley doesn’t have the money to seriously compete with Lindsey Graham and he won’t be getting any help from the progressive blogosphere with his attitude towards Latinos, women, and gays. But as a strictly political matter, he has positioned himself to maximally contest Graham’s seat. He’s running to Graham’s right on immigration, just as Graham’s GOP primary challenger did. He neuters any advantage Graham might have on social issues. And that leaves him free to go after Graham on economic populism and our failed foreign policies. It’s a recipe that just won the Democrats two House seats in blood red districts.
What’s interesting about this is that these candidates are not in the Blue Dog mold. They are definitely not in the New Democrat mold. They take pieces from each faction of the Democratic Party and some from the Republican Party. If enough of them are elected they will probably form their own unique caucus.
They are capable of creating a great amount of mischief, particularly if they form an essential part of our working majority. But if they are essentially padding to a center-left immigrant-women-gay friendly working majority, they will probably be a net plus because of their economic populism and anti-imperialism stances. On many issues they will be better allies to the Progressives than either the Blue Dogs or the New Democrats. And they’ll provide much needed cover for Progressives on issues like free trade, national security, and the Drug Wars.
As uneasy as these politicians make me on some core issues, their emergence as Democrats shows that the Democrats are poised to be the ruling party in this country for some time to come. It’s almost a reemergence of the New Deal coalition, with the North being the anchor rather than the segregationist South. The elements of xenophobia are all too evident, as well as the basic social conservatism of the region. But this isn’t the Jim Crow south. It’s still disturbing, even alarming, in its hostility to Latino immigration and immigration in general. But we lived with much worse during most of the 20th Century, and we’re living with it now in the form of the modern Republican Party.
These are fascinating times. Next year we’re going to be living in a much different country than we’re used to. It will probably be more familiar to the people that lived through the 50’s and 60’s, where Democrats dominated even as they were badly divided on some of the most pressing issues of the day.
What do you think?
