Despite this major issue I have with Moser's premise, I feel that he does have much to offer to those who are to make the effort toward returning a measure of influence and control over the government to the voters. Moser takes a stance as a rekindled New Deal Democrat (of which I approve) who brandishes an overt hostility toward Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council (of which I also approve). Certainly the points Moser raises should be discussed, even in the smoky backrooms where the real decisions are made.
As a Southern-origin person himself, Moser has insights to the Southern mind that I as a Northern urban-dweller never will have. He continually presents anecdotal evidence that the typical Southern voter is far more progressive than commonly believed elsewhere in the land. The Democratic Party should give serious consideration to Moser's thoughts, for they have few better assets to draw upon. There is much to be gained.
Despite neglect and abuse from the national party organization, Moser points out that Gallup polling in 2006 discovered more voters claiming Democratic affiliation than Republican in all but three Southern states (Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi). Since then, possibly in part due to Howard Dean's 50 State strategy, both Texas (see above link) and Mississippi are showing signs that they too are turning blue. Moser presents many examples of how Southern political thought isn't very different from that of major Democratic strongholds, and attempts to alert the Democratic National Committee to the ready availability of low-hanging political fruit.
I strongly recommend Blue Dixie, especially to those who want to reverse the extremist damages done to the national liberty and democracy by the extremists who currently make up the Republican Party. It is as good a place to begin as any other - and it's not just for Democrats. Blue Dixie should speak loudly to all of us, whether progressive or not. For if we don't hang together in this world, we surely will hang separately.
Article comments
1 - Polemicscat
Strange that there is no mention of Conservative and Liberal in this. The South is conservative and has been since before the War Between the States. Strong central government has been a Northern thing since before Lincoln. Southern conservatives (disliking a powerful central government) were Democrats in opposition in Lincoln's war to create a strong central government. In the mid-twentieth century those Southern conservatives started becoming Republicans in the face of Northern Democrats becoming increasingly in favor of a powerful Federal government. There is no end in sight of the liberal Democrats' desire to micro-manage the lives of citizens. The Constitution forbids it but is ignored these days. (Read Ninth and Tenth Amendments). Southerners have wished to be left alone by government since a time before Lincoln shredded the Constitution.
2 - Polemicscat
Supplemental Reading for you: Why the North Needed War Northern Editorials (1861) Following the Secession of Southern States
The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the
country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws,
is now thoroughly understood the world over.... If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage... If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the
same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers... Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North... We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt.
With us it is no longer an abstract question - one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.... We were divided and confused till our
pockets were touched. - New York Times March 30, 1861
__________________________________________________
The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing.... It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No - we MUST NOT "let the South go."
----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861
__________________________________________________
That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad.... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.... Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports.
---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.
3 - Dr. J.M. Ashburn
The term "war between the states" is better known as The war of Southern Independence. The North (Federals) drew first blood and committed the horrible crime of invasion on a sovereign Nation, The Confederate States of America. To say otherwise is blind history reconstructed for the purpose of self appeasement.