This article was written by our very own Virginia senator, Jim Webb, right before the 2004 election. It wasn't paid much attention to then, but I feel it has a significant amount of relevance now given Obama's problems in Appalachia. It sheds some light on what makes Appalachia tick. Are there racists in Appalachia? Yes. Just like everywhere in the United States. But to paint the entire region as "racist" does them a huge disservice.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005798
Speaking in a quasirural dialect that his critics dismiss as affected, W. is telling his core voting groups that he is one of them. No matter that he is the product of many generations of wealth; that his grandfather was a New England senator; that his father moved the family's wealth South just like the hated Carpetbaggers after the Civil War; that he himself went North to Andover and Yale and Harvard when it came time for serious grooming. And as with the persona, so also with the key issues. The Bush campaign proceeds outward from a familiar mantra: strong leadership, success in war, neighbor helping neighbor, family values, and belief in God. Contrary to many analyses, these issues reach much farther than the oft-discussed Christian right. The president will not win re-election without carrying the votes of the Scots-Irish, along with those others who make up the "Jacksonian" political culture that has migrated toward the values of this ethnic group.
At the same time, few key Democrats seem even to know that the Scots-Irish exist, as this culture is so adamantly individualistic that it will never overtly form into one of the many interest groups that dominate Democratic Party politics. Indeed, it can be fairly said that Al Gore lost in 2000 because the Democrats ignored this reality and the Scots-Irish enclaves of West Virginia and Tennessee turned against him.
Why are the 30 million Scots-Irish, who may well be America's strongest cultural force, so invisible to America's intellectual elites? It is commonplace for commentators to lump together those who are descended from British roots into the WASP culture typified by New England Brahmins, or the Irish, who are overwhelmingly Catholic. But it is political nonsense to consider the Scots-Irish as part of either.
The Scots-Irish comprised a large percentage of Reagan Democrats, and contributed heavily to the "red state" votes that gave Mr. Bush the presidency in 2000. The areas with the highest Scots-Irish populations include New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, northern Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, northern Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, southern Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and parts of California, particularly Bakersfield. The "factory belt," especially around Detroit, also has a strong Scots-Irish mix.
This is the particular group that Obama has had troubles with throughout the entire primary season. They are better known as Appalachian voters. They have given some very slanted margins to Hillary in Eastern Kentucky, Southeast Ohio, Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, Northern Tennessee, etc. The Obamites tell us that the Democrats can ignore them and win the election. That is simply not the case. Only when the Democrats tap into Appalachia do they win the election. Jimmy Carter tapped into Southeastern Ohio and won Ohio by the slightest of margins in 1976 against Gerald Ford. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton did exceptionally well in Southeastern Ohio, which helped give him the election. John Kerry and Al Gore did terribly in Appalachia, and in Kerry's case his lackluster performance in Southeast Ohio, essentially Appalachia Country, is why he didn't win Ohio and thus the election.
The Appalachia voting bloc is very important. To ignore it and deem it as irrelevant will mean that we could possibly be looking at a 3rd straight presidential election loss.
Hillary can relate to these voters. Obama, as of today, has done terribly among this voting bloc. Can he improve with them? Perhaps. But he simply can't ignore them like he did over the last few days when his visits to Kentucky and West Virginia were an afterthought. Hillary gives us "street cred" among these voters. It is one of the reasons why she is more electable. Without Appalachia, the Democrats simply don't win elections. Period.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
