I like that first anonymous post at 6:33 PM. It strips away whatever shred of dignity might be found in my taste for Anarchism. And though a taste for “Anarchism”–call it, rather, a “pretension to political enlightenment”–may linger for a while, the dignity of the thing is really over and done with. We’ll just have to keep toughing it out in the dark, like Sacco and Vanzetti.
But what to make of the Barkeep’s artful terminology?
Well, for one thing, he has a nice, clean take on the South–that baleful source of Republican “dixification”. And he knows of whom he speaks: Thurmond, Long, Maddox, and who knows who else besides. I, as a taxpaying citizen of Alabama, have to admit that when I read the Barkeep’s post, I hang my head in shame–as if I’d just voted for Wallace in 1962….
Not really. No, not at all. I don’t really hang my head in shame–not, anyway, at the sound of that home address.
Nut why not?
Let’s take another look at those names, folks. Let’s ask ourselves where they’re coming from, and when. I know that Maddox and Thurmond recently died, but their moments of greatest notoriety were in the fifties and sixties. Those Dixiecrats did their thing from 1948 to 1972–from the beginning to the end, in effect, of Hubert Horatio Humphrey’s touching career. It was a finite political movement in most respects–except that the ghosts live on….
But does a ghost have a postal address? Can you write to a ghost in Georgia, say, and hope that the message will reach it? If so, then the ghost is less a ghost than a genius loci–like a dryad, say, or a naiad, or like a hamadryad….
Who comes from the South of late? Cheney? Bush? Rumsfeld? Rove? Wolfowitz? Card? No? Then we’re left with Condolezza Rice, and the recently humiliated Trent Lott, and a few others we could also mention–but do they really count the way they used to? Does anyone pay lots of attention to Jeff Sessions? No more, I believe, than they pay to Rick Santorum.
The Barkeep demonizes the South. I can certainly agree that the South has its ugly side, but I would also argue that the South is not where the money can be found–not relatively so. And we’re told to follow the money. We should follow the money, above all, when we are fetching up a critique about explicitly ideological issues such as “school prayer,” “gay marriage,” “gun control,” “abortion,” and all the other hot-button issues.
I’m willing to bet that the Barkeep hasn’t spent five days, or even five minutes, in the Deep South, or if he did, he was sleeping in a hotel with the curtains drawn at the time. And, while I hesitate to mention it, since it’s the sort of thing that excites all kinds of ingenious denial, I will point out that my own home town, not a large one in West Alabama, has spent more money watching the gospel according to Moore than the gospel according to Gibson. This won’t count for much with the Barkeep, who has rounded on both those preachers, but in truth a piece of information like this would really surprise him, except that he’s demonized the south, and so no “exceptions” are interesting. Local color, perhaps, but nothing of general import.
The point about the South is its grotesque and seamless continuity with other parts of the country, like California, Pennsylvania and New York. Grotesque, because it’s still so poor that it ought somehow to be different. But poverty is the same everywhere, and there’s a whole lot of poverty going around. As for the South’s billionaires, well, they carry on like billionaires everywhere else. They own property all over the place, and circulate among their holdings in own private jets. I don’t get the regional flavor of this at all.
So I’m going out on a limb, and I’m going to say that the Barkeep’s demonization of the South is, if not entirely misguided, certainly in the service of a powerful defense against reality. What that reality may be, I hesitate to surmise.
But let me surmise anyway. I find it fun to surmise, it gives me something to smile at.
Money claims that it has no address–any more than a ghost does–and it likes to adhere to itself. It would rather adhere to itself than spend itself on this or that good cause, through a process of equitable taxation. And as it adheres to itself, it denounces conditions that are characterized as local–which, of course, they are, except that the “localities” aren’t strictly local at all (and Santorum, by this reckoning, is the spiritual heir of Thurmond). And by stating the condition as thus, money distracts us from the only localities that count, namely the concentrations of capital.
I’m not a capitalist, and I’m not a manager, but I’m a teacher with a TIAA-CREF pension plan, thoughtfully provided by my employer. But you know what? TIAA-CREF is really my home address. It tells me that I’m a part owner of a vast concentration of capital, one whose politics are really important. Question: what have I invested in lately? General Technologies perhaps, or Raytheon? One or another of these, and perhaps even Exxon or Shell. This is of infinitely greater consequence–certainly for the poor people in my workplace, part-time teachers and the like, who have no pension plan with TIAA-CREF–than my living where I do. My “co-workers” and I live in different zip-codes: mine is called TIAA-CREF, and there’s is called anywhere else but that.
I admit to some curiosity about the Barkeep’s zipcode, but I wouldn’t dream of asking. I might ask him where his house is, but that’s another story, and not an important one either, relatively speaking.
It’s true that the one powerful local political entity hereabouts is not the city, the county, the state or the nation. It’s the parish, the church, the temple. Everyone tithes to their home congregation, and so of course they hate to pay taxes to the city, the county, the state or the nation. And since these churches, for the most part, are organized along lines of race, language and wealth, they reinforce all the regressive tendencies of our body politic.
I really don’t know how to change this, but I know that if I wanted to change it, I’d have to enlist my neighbors in TIAA-CREF, just as others would have to enlist their neighbors in CALPERS, or Vanguard, or whatever other mutual fund they happen to inhabit.
If the Barkeep can help us figure this out, I’ll buy a round for the house.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 23:53 utc | 4

Cloned Poster, the Civil War is over–except, I suppose, on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the Fox thing. We have a few folks down here who pretend otherwise, just as a few folks in the Northeast also pretend otherwise.
Alabama (the state, not the pseudonym) will be mad as hell if Bush steals the election, but this place won’t lead a charge to behead the guy. When you’re schooled to be a loser, you don’t work up the outrage felt by a winner (as Marx reminds us when he speaks of the Lumpenproletariat). In this respect, Alabama’s no different from Ireland. If it became rich, somehow, and if the wealth translated into education, and the education translated into thinking, then you might expect it to do otherwise. But the place is passive, and it’s been passive since the devastations of the Civil War (there’s nothing wrong with this place that a sudden influx of 5 million Mexicans wouldn’t change overnight).
They hate the war down here. They hate what it does to their families, which are entirely exposed to the mad schemes of that Secretary of Defense who just won’t stop hurting people.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 14 2004 0:15 utc | 6

SusanG, I don’t know where you live, but I’m prepared to suppose that you don’t live in the South. Not, at least, in this part of the South. If you did, you might hesitate to speak with such confidence about its “intolerance”.
Connecticut is like the old South Africa compared to Alabama. And when you drive through New England in general, how many counties with a majority of African-Americans do you see? How many African-Americans do you see, come to think of it?
I call you on this, my dear, because if you can’t think around this corner, no one can think around this corner. And I’ll admit, that though I’ve lived here now for twenty years, I haven’t found the way to share my discoveries with friends from other parts of the country. They don’t believe a word of what I say, and so I refrain from talking about it, even when invited to do so.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 14 2004 0:34 utc | 8

SusanG
Disagree, 2000 election was the start of isolationism. 2008, quagmire in Iraq, regardless of the encumbent, and those pumps are working overtime…… for those SUVs.
Nader/Buchanism ticket…. never unless there’s Civil War.
PS: Use the “cheney” for the F word.
@Alabama, will read your post in the morning and respond. Night all.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 14 2004 0:40 utc | 10

I’m willing to bet that the Barkeep hasn’t spent five days, or even five minutes, in the Deep South, or if he did, he was sleeping in a hotel with the curtains drawn at the time.
GREAT THOUGHTS ALABAMA
Probably has not spent 5 minutes in what we gentlemen of the South politely refer to as a Riding Academy either. Doubt if he’s ever spent any time in a REAL BAR also.
Amusing tho’ ain’t it:
All this pontificating with zilch nitty-gritty life experience.
Drinks for you BAMA! And thanks for saying it!

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 14 2004 1:49 utc | 12

Annie, I stand corrected–though I’d also be interested in knowing the part of the South from which he migrated….

Posted by: alabama | Jul 14 2004 2:00 utc | 14

@FlashHarry
“All this pontificating with zilch nitty-gritty life experience.”
and all this speculation on someone’s life with zilch nitty gritty real facts to base them on.
sad tho’ ain’t it?

Posted by: ByteB | Jul 14 2004 2:16 utc | 16

hey, i wasn’t offended at all flashharry. coming from sf i just expected this weird breed out there, and they were weird, but so loving. alabama, my mothers family settled in a town now called lake city, sc , used to be called pages mill, named after my great aunt, its still in the family. my mom had 9 brothers and sisters, when i arrived in town i ask for ‘aunt sally ‘ at the gas station and an 4 car loads of people escorted me to her house. my maternal grandfather ” hell, i ain’t prejudice, i hire ’em” was from tennessee.

Posted by: annie | Jul 14 2004 2:25 utc | 18

Please, I am not calling into account the tolerance of individuals or even regional areas in the South. Of course, there are places in the South where progressivism is strong, just as there are regions in the Northeast or California where conservatism — and intolerance — are strong. I thought I made that clear. If not, my apologies all around to the offended Southerners.
I am discussing demographic polls about social attitudes in America. If you want me to go re-find them again, I will. In terms of tolerance for gay lifestyles, women’s reproductive rights, support of the Patriot Act, belief in creationism, intolerance of the teaching of evolution … well, demographically, the South polls to the right of the rest of the country.
I am from California. And I don’t challenge anyone from another area of the country who says San Fransisco is liberal and Orange County is conservative. Surveys can tell you that. I don’t ask that you come here to experience it; I assume you can extrapoloate from data. Does that mean every person in San Francisco, even every neighborhood, is liberal? Of course not. Ditto with Orange County and conservatism. It does mean, however, that those areas vote historically a certain way. As does the South. And that is what was the subject of Billmon’s post (or one of the subjects) — that the South generally votes non-progressively.
These surveys are facts and I don’t see how you can argue with them based on anecdotal evidence about your home towns in the South. Bucolic and ideal as they may be, the voting trends and demographic surveys do not show this to be the norm.
And if we’re going to allow anecdotal evidence to carry the day and disregard facts, I’ll throw one into play on my side: When my husband was 14 years old in Hickman, Kentucky, he had both legs broken by a gang of grown-ups who didn’t like the fact that his father, who ran the hometown newspaper, questioned why the African-American high school football players were forced to suit up in a gardening shack while the white boys had the locker room. Year: 1974. Result: My father-in-law’s newspaper was boycotted out of business and the family had to leave the only home they’d ever known.
It ain’t all bad though. My father-in-law won the Elijah P. Lovejoy award for courage in journalism and came out to California, where I eventually met my husband.
Is his story any more valid than yours as a picture of what the real South is like? Of course not. And under the right circumstances, that story could have happened anywhere in the U.S.
All I’m saying is (in a very long-winded way because I’m feeling slightly and somewhat intentionally misunderstood): When you look at demographic opinion data, the Southern states report less tolerance for alternative lifestyles, more willingness to support the Patiot Act and more eagerness to codify their individual beliefs into law (a la Judge Moore).

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 14 2004 2:31 utc | 20

@alabama
“All this pontificating with zilch nitty-gritty life experience.” Flasharry.
I come in peace, Alabama. My post wasn’t meant for you but in response to Flasharry’s objections to Billmon’s ‘pontificating'(a loaded word, no?) and his assumptions (and perhaps ‘assumptions’ is a more accurate word than ‘speculation’) concerning Billmon’s roots and lack of life experiences. It struck me as a rather harsh attack against a man we know little about rather than debating the ideas, theories and, yes, speculations contained in Billmon’s post.
This Yankee has always been a great admirer of your well-reasoned and erudite posts. 🙂

Posted by: ByteB | Jul 14 2004 3:13 utc | 22

Regardless of how tolerant or intolerant the South is, the politics of the Old South is Hard Right and anti-Progressive — at least, that part of the South that has given the modern GOP an electoral lock on the region.
But this anti-progressivism was not always so — in 1938, FDR had 95% approval in the South. But while Southern Whites supported FDR and the New Deal, they voted against his slate of progressive candidates in the 1938 election.
Like it or not, Race and Civil Rights are the most potent of wedge issues for Southern Whites. Cultural Values supplement the appeal, but it is the legacy of Racism, Slavery, and Civil War that elects men like Lester Maddox, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and John Ashcroft.
It wasn’t Southern Hospitality that murdered Emmit Till; it wasn’t Southern Neighborliness that made Philadelphia Mississippi famous. Ronald Reagan launched his campaign there with an endorsement of States Rights — not Civil Rights.
While some progress has been made, the Confederate GOP prospers in Dixie, precisely because they skillfully play the race card.
Not that the North is free of Racism — South Boston and many other places are no prize in that regard. In the 1920’s, the Klan virtually took over state government in Colorado. But that was then, and this is now.
The legacy of losing the Civil War, and suffering the excesses of Reconstruction, have left the Southern White Body Politic with a peculiar seething animosity towards that which replaced Jim Crow with a semblance of Civil Rights. It is by playing on the cultural values of animosity that has allowed the Reactionary GOP to thrive.
Suffice to say, the modern GOP long ago stopped being the Party of Lincoln — the modern GOP has become party of Jefferson Davis.

Posted by: ck | Jul 14 2004 4:05 utc | 24

Suffice to say, the modern GOP long ago stopped being the Party of Lincoln — the modern GOP has become party of Jefferson Davis.
Well I can’t argue with that much.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 14 2004 4:13 utc | 26

no apologies necessary, Flasharry.
(and I read and re-read what you wrote about your work. amazing and sad.)
night..

Posted by: ByteB | Jul 14 2004 4:19 utc | 28

The Modern GOP has become masterful at playing on the emotions of anger, fear, resentment, and hate — and then, bundling together, and calling it values.
Hope can conquer fear, and understanding overcomes resentment — but man, it is a tough row to hoe.
Overcoming those instinctive, gut level reptilian emotions requires that people think — and when it’s so much easier to listen to Rush rant about liberals, that’s a tough nut to crack.
Race and resentment about the Civil War is the GOP’s opening in the South — but they’ve managed to find emotional touchstones of resentment in all regions of the country.
Suffice to say, it does my heart good that John Edwards brings his honey dipped charm and whip smart legal skills to the Democratic Ticket — he can do more for the cause of tolerance, than any law passed in Washington.
The times, they are a changin’ . . .

Posted by: ck | Jul 14 2004 4:27 utc | 30

SusanG, if only we could put these thoughts to work! I have a theory, not very advanced, as to why our “safety-net” has been degraded. It’s not a comforting theory, but it accords rather well with your phrase about our “reptilian brains” (in terms of their temporality, if you will).
The New Deal was invented by people who were rich, and weren’t destroyed by the Crash, and had good reason to be alarmed at the protest movements welling up around them. These rich people all came from Wall Street–there are no important exceptions to this fact–and many of them came from families that had been rich for a very long time–anywhere fifty to two hundred and fifty years.
In the decades after WW II our country has risen in wealth (it continues to do so in some places), and people who were once desperately poor have come into large fortunes. The notable fact, however, is that many of these people don’t feel rich, or they don’t feel secure in their wealth. They often find it rather wounding to acknowledge that the New Deal had anything to do with their prosperity. It’s easy to take the credit and run.
Now for that anecdote–the kind of “evidence” that makes us all uneasy.
My dentist, a man almost seventy-five years of age, grew up on a dirt farm near this town. No electricity in the house! And when the lights went on, thanks to the TVA, my dentist’s father expressed what must have been a very impressive message of gratitude towards the distant figure of FDR for this unexpected blessing. The dentist went to college, worked his way through dental school, and became a prosperous man. And now, when he cleans my teeth, and I’m not in a position to talk back, this man–who’s not a bad person at all–takes that one opportunity to ridicule his father for “worshipping” FDR.
Needless to say, the dentist is a committed Republican, and a sworn enemy of Clinton. He knows, of course, that as soon as I can get out of the dentist’s chair, I’ll tell him how much I love Bill Clinton. I think he expects me to say that–he’d be quite disappointed if I didn’t.
This is a man who needs lots of time to figure things out. In him I see the lag of that “reptilian” brain, and I worry that he’ll be long gone before the nickle has a chance to drop….

Posted by: alabama | Jul 14 2004 10:02 utc | 32

This has been quite an interesting thread and I’ve been following with great interest, even though many points were so cogent and insightful I felt I could have nothing to add.
alabama and teuton have both touched on a topic that I have some experience with — that refutation of the benefits of New Deal-type legislation that got the country (countries) moving and gave the great benefits of prosperity and forward movement from times of great hardship.
I have had my share of listening to people complain about the need to undo the New Deal, whose lives, quite frankly, were the result of the New Deal — those lives being prosperous and successful.
I’d like to note that in the US, one form of this type of liberal legislation that led to success and prosperity for many was the G.I. Bill. Without it, I don’t know where an entire generation of WWII vets would have wound up differently than what our experience has been.
Again, thanks for this discussion–it’s been great to follow along.

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 12:52 utc | 34

Great point, Harry. Let me just add that, having never lived in the Southern US, I found that discussion fascinating.

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 14:15 utc | 36

Wow. That’s a lot of venom in that first comment. No wonder there’s no name attached to it. If the label Anarchist is too poisoned by such intellectual dishonesty, then perhaps social libertarian is a better reference point. It’s quite clear to me that the poster endorses the notion that the label libertarian only equates to economic or free-market libertarians. That’s taking a lot of liberties to make such a weak attempt at humour.

Posted by: b real | Jul 14 2004 14:54 utc | 38