"Africa is, indeed, coming into fashion." - Horace Walpole (1774)


the glorious south

Poor, white Southerners voted against Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, and they did it because of his race. As this article argues, in doing so, it's quite clear that they've made the south - and the Republican Party's Southern strategy - largely irrelevant in national politics.


Blogger Michael said...

And are the blacks that voted for Obama because of his race also irrelevant?

Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:20:00 PM

Blogger texasinafrica said...

No, 'cause they've shown their political power. But I agree that the reasoning behind voting for a candidate is also flawed. I won't say "equally flawed" because it's not the same as unrepentant racism.

Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:24:00 PM

Blogger Michael said...

I think it is a little early to say it is irrelevant. The article said that almost half of Republican Congressmen come from the South. That means that over half do not. I think the New York Times is hoping this is the beginning of the end. That being said, due to population trends, the West and Southwest seem to be growing in importance every year.

Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:42:00 PM

Blogger David McCullars said...

Although it is always a poor choice to use race in your decision-making (one of many reasons why I think affirmative action is a bad thing), there is a huge, huge difference between voting FOR someone because of race and voting AGAINST someone because of race.

Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:21:00 PM

Blogger Michael said...

and what is that "huge, huge difference"?

Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:28:00 PM

Blogger David McCullars said...

No one gets up in arms when a state tends to favor the candidate from that state. It's only natural for Iowans to support an Iowa candidate. Likewise, young voters might tend to favor young candidates; women may be drawn toward women candidates (at least my wife is); homosexuals might be more inclined to vote for a homosexual candidate; left handed people might prefer a left handed candidate; etc, etc.

On the other hand, for a Nebraskan to vote against someone because they are from say Utah, that's stupid. Or for a young person to vote against the old geezer, or a man to refuse to vote for a woman, or a straight person to dismiss a homosexual candidate ... all of these things are despicable.

We have the right to vote however we please. If someone wants to vote against someone because they're black, they can, but they shouldn't be surprised when the rest of the civilized world calls foul play and remarks at how uneducated they are.

Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:18:00 PM

Blogger David McCullars said...

In fact, it goes much bigger than voting along racial lines. It's about voting FOR things rather than AGAINST them. One approach is proactive; it's trying to improve the world we live in; it's taking a positive step. The other approach is defensive; resisting change; it's accepting the status-quo out of fear and/or ignorance.

There's nothing wrong with voting for Sen. John McCain. He is an exceptional man with an exceptional career in politics. He has good ideas of how to lead the country, and he would have made a good president. I didn't vote AGAINST McCain; I voted FOR Obama because I felt he would do the better job. I can respect and laud anyone who voted FOR McCain; I have no patience for anyone that voted AGAINST Obama.

Hope that clears things up.

Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:25:00 PM

Blogger Michael said...

I agree with you that voting based on race is stupid. I don't care if you are voting for someone because they are black or against them because they are black. Both are done on account of race.

I do, however, disagree with you on voting against people. There is nothing wrong with voting against a candidate. You wrote, "[This] approach is defensive; resisting change; it's accepting the status-quo out of fear and/or ignorance."

Voting against a candidate doesn't mean you are ignorant. It means that the candidate doesn't support what you believe in. Voting against a candidate also doesn't mean you are against change. There are tons of people that voted against Bush in 2004 and he offered no real change from 2000.

Voting against something is part of the process. Congressmen do it every day. Personally, I voted FOR Bob Barr and AGAINST Obama and McCain because neither of them represented my values. Americans have been voting for the lesser of two evils since the beginning of time, and as sad as it is that those are our only real choices, that doesn't make voters ignorant or afraid.

Friday, November 14, 2008 8:14:00 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home