[Peace-discuss] Flag Flub

[mackaman]

I wanted to intervene in this discussion on both sides.

Dean's remark was not only a miscalculation, it exhibited either deep 
ignorance or a certain lack of political principle.  Either way, he mistakenly 
assumes that he can build a successful political coalition by appealing to the 
reactionary instincts of poor southern whites.  Not a promising way to forge 
political coalition with poor southern blacks.  In a note last week, I argued 
that people on the left should put principle above the false promises of 
short-term tactical politics, and then Dean--who is in any case a complete 
fraud-- provided a perfect example of doing just the opposite.

But I think Carl's letter brought up a very important point that has been 
ignored by those who wrote back, and that is the specter of class that is 
scarcely concealed behind what is, in this case at least, the much more 
superficially evident issue of race/racism.

There should be little doubt that much of the "flap", as Carl puts it, amounts 
to Dean being successfully censured by a political and media establishment 
that fear any broaching of shared economic grievances among poor southern 
whites and blacks, which was what Dean aimed to do, even if in an 
unprincipled, and certainly deceitful, way.

The racial division of the southern poor and working class-- and the 
Democratic Party's support of it-- dates back to prior to the Civil War, when 
Democratic "machine" politicians alligned themselves politically with the 
slavocracy against Republican abolitionism, sewing the seeds of racism among 
both northern and southern white workers.  Franklin Roosevelt, even at the 
height of Democratic Party liberalism, refused to upset the applecart in "the 
solid South" and alienate Jim Crow politicians.  JFK and LBJ were forced by 
the massive Civil Rights movement to offer concessions, and the Republicans, 
with Nixon's so-called "southern strategy" have exploited this by becoming the 
party of race-baiting and so-called "states' rights."

In theory, this political reallignment should have offered Democrats the 
opportunity to finally build a coalition of all the southern poor and working 
class-- the vast majority of the region's population--and in combination with 
the northern industrial working class that they purported to represent.  
However, as history has shown, they have been unwilling to do so, fighting the 
Republicans tooth and nail for the "conservative" southern voters (see the 
recent crushing Democratic defeats in Missippi and KY).  The one-hundred and 
fifty years of Democratic treachery and cowardice in the South have exacted a 
high price in blood for southern workers, and for the nation as a whole.

Dean's unwillingness to confront his political tormentors by arguing more 
emphatically (and honestly!) for serious socio-economic reallignment, shows 
that he has quickly assimilated History 101 for "serious" politicians: do not 
inflame the explosive situation in the South by mentioning that shared 
interests might exist for poor blacks and whites.  Better a maladroit 
"apology" that accepts the critique of the comment as taken out of context-- 
the stupid and unprincipled part of what you said-- and to forget about the 
major political issue you aimed to get at:  shared interests among poor blacks 
and whites in the South.

Finally, one should also be wary of the typical Democratic political 
horsetrading that underlies the exchange. Of course, Sharpton and Edwards both 
wanted to milk as much political mileage as possible out of the frontrunner's 
"mistake."  Furthermore, a sharp political operator like Sharpton will 
capitalize on this when and if Dean wins the nomination.  Like a good 
Democrat, Sharpton will, of course, eventually endorse nominee Dean, but now 
at an even more elevated political price for his loyalty.

In sum, as with every major issue, there is much more at work here than "meets 
the eye."


Tom