Ed Koch, Soul-Searching, and Race

I have commented at length several times about the need for the Democratic Party to do some serious soul-searching after their latest round of electoral setbacks. I have also noted with interest that certain pundits have attempted to understand the electorate in terms of cultural differences between various parts of our nation. As a Southerner, I am always interested in what they say about the South.

Ed Koch, one of my favorite 9-11 Democrats, placed his nation over his party and campaigned for Bush in the last election. Today, he offers some advice to the Democrats in the vein of soul-searching. Inevitably, the question of how the Democrats lost the South comes up, and I intend to focus on this aspect of his commentary.

Second, Democrats should examine why the South, at one time a bastion of the Democratic Party, appears permanently lost to the Republicans. It is no secret that in the South, the Democratic Party is now overwhelmingly viewed as the party of African-American voters, and the Republican Party is overwhelmingly viewed as the party of white voters. It would be easy to simply conclude that Southern whites left the Democratic Party to demonstrate their opposition to national civil rights legislation enacted with the support of Lyndon Johnson and every Democratic president since Johnson. If that is what has occurred, it may be that the South is lost for the foreseeable future to the Democrats, and no tears need be shed. But, if there are other reasons outside of race, then we should learn what they are and see if the party philosophy is at fault.

Koch is mostly correct that the Democrats are often seen as the party of the blacks and the Republicans as that of the whites, but I have to say that the very idea that this is because "Southern whites left the Democratic Party to demonstrate their opposition to national civil rights legislation enacted with the support of Lyndon Johnson and every Democratic president since" is preposterous. First of all, there's the fact that all the important (and valid) legislation passed about forty years ago and has thus been a fact of life for more than a generation. I am not black, but I grew up during this era, attending private schools that were about 50% black. I have lived on both coasts as well as the Northeast. While I don't know what it would be like to be black in these different areas, have a fair idea where the whites in these places stand on racial issues. I dare say that the South, while very heterogeneous in that respect, is on balance probably the most racially tolerant part of the country. I find it odd that Koch even brings up this possibility. Maybe he knows he has to to get the ear of his party. As you'll surmise, Southern whites can be forgiven for their impression that the Democrats still think we're a bunch of racist idiots down here.

Here are a few reasons why the two parties have become associated with the two main races in the South. (1) The blacks themselves see the Democrats as their party! Blacks do bloc vote Democratic, don't they? (2) "Civil rights" legislation has changed a lot over the years. The struggle in the name of civil rights has moved away from being a just and good fight for individual rights. It is now just pressure group warfare for preferential treatment of blacks at the expense of whites. We do not oppose equal treatment of men of all races under the law. We do, however, oppose being discriminated against. We oppose being made to pay retribution for crimes against blacks we did not commit. Civil rights legislation has over the years become such in name only. We increasingly find ourselves, in that respect, fighting our own Jim Crow laws. And guess which party champions hiring quotas for blacks, gerrymandering to elect black officials, and now, on occasion so far, reparations for slavery? The Democrats are buying the black vote with government favors and calling them "civil rights" with the further implication that we whites are all a bunch of bigots. Lose the favoritism. You may lose a few black votes, but you'll gain some white votes. (3) The Democrats are the party of big government. They thus appeal to poor blacks who need (or have been made to believe they need) government assistance just to get by. Government programs are run on tax revenue. Whites generally are better off than blacks in the South, but many still have a hard time making ends meet. Which party is going to raise their taxes? Overall, the blacks want the Democrats and the whites want the Republicans. This isn't racism: it's economics. (4) The Democrats are soft on crime. Our heavily black cities are often awash in crime. White residents feel besieged. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians decry our criminal justice system for having incarcerated proportionally more blacks than there are in the general population. It is well-known that a great crisis facing Black America is crime. It is not racism on my part to mention this tragedy. It is also not racism to want black criminals to be dealt justice. I have gone on long enough and could go on more. (And don't even get me started on public schools!)

The general impression -- rightly or wrongly -- that white Southerners have is that the Democratic Party taxes them to buy the votes of blacks, while at the same time making blacks into a government-dependent underclass who have no incentive for self-improvement. This underclass breeds criminals, who are not held accountable for their actions. White Southerners see a vicious circle of crime and dependency perpetuated by the Democrats and paid for at their own expense. Believe it or not, many of us would really like to see blacks succeeding in life. But we wonder how this can happen in general when big government removes the incentive to learn how, runs lousy schools, and permits criminals to infest black neighborhoods. Maybe the Democrats need to rethink their whole so-called "civil rights" agenda, and not just for the shallow purpose of getting more votes. Maybe Southern whites, having lived in a South shaped by Democratic policies, can make a contribution to this dialogue besides racial epithets. Or maybe we're just a bunch of 'baccy-spittin' hayseeds who want to keep the nigras down. If the Democrats don't overhaul their domestic agenda, particularly the part they do in the name of civil rights, they will lose the South for good, but tears should be shed. For the whites and for the blacks, but not for the Democrats.

I think Ed Koch has the right idea with regards to the South, but is his party ready to see that white Southerners aren't hicks? I'm not so sure. And is he or his party ready to examine their platform by asking what it actually accomplishes rather than basking in an air of moral superiority? Of that I am not sure, either. Look at what Koch is calling "civil rights." No. Really look. I'll know if you did by whether you dismiss me as a cracker.

-- CAV