LikeTheDew.com

The “Southern strategy,” supposedly put in place by Richard Nixon and his minions in response to the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, is generally evaluated on the basis of results — a disenchanted previously Democratic regional population electing Republicans to national office on the basis of vague promises to promote their sense of exceptionalism and moral superiority.

That no tangible benefits were forthcoming to these voters has long been obvious and still the Republican base has not only remained loyal, but morphed into the Religious Right. Democrats scratch their heads in puzzlement. This Sunday’s article on Corrine Brown in the Florida Times-Union reminded me that the issue is more complex, but also entirely explainable, if one considers the motivation and the results objectively. 

At the core are some preconceived notions which, in most instances, serve Republicans particularly well. In the case of Corrine Brown they’ve simply ceded one seat to hold on to three others — sort of a sop to Democrats. This assessment isn’t in any way meant to diminish Representative Brown. If I want to suggest anything by it, it’s that the Republican response to her performance in office is mostly laziness. Laziness is what Republicans, both in and out of office, do best. Anything that minimizes the number of Democratic candidates helps.

So, how do they keep getting elected to positions whose responsibilities they don’t carry out? The answer is PR. Public relations is what they buy with the tons of money they collect, year in and year out. Public relations is also what they do 24/7 and 365 days a year. It never lets up. Indeed, Republicans have re-defined the role of the politician as a public relations function. No longer is it the “art of the possible,” nor does it bear any resemblance to public service, as in serving the interests of the polis. And, for that matter, neither are our Republicans alone in having adopted this strategy.

I was actually alerted to this transformation of the politician’s role by the testimony of Attorney General Goldsmith at the inquiry into Iraq by the Brits. As he explained it, his task was merely to come up with a plausibly legal justification for the planned invasion of Iraq and then it was up to the rest of the cabinet to handle the political aspects — i.e. sell the public on the notion that it was the right thing to do. Indeed, according to Goldsmith, public acceptance of the proposal to invade was how “right” was defined. In other words, in his mind, there was no ethical standard against which the proposed action was to be the measure. Legal is what the law permits and right is what the public accepts without “punishing” the politicians by turning them out of office. Instead of being responsive to the will or interests (not even special interests) of the people, public policy as now practiced aims to be persuasive. Top down, instead of bottom up, if you will. Government as public relations is what politicians can get away with.

You could say that government as public relations has simply evolved from advertising to “sell” goods and services in the market, where hype and deception have long been accepted under cover of that age-old injunction, “buyer beware.” And that’s probably correct. But the “Southern strategy” is more. Persuading consumers to take a particular action implicitly recognizes that they have a choice and their actions are important. The “Southern strategy,” being a response to universal suffrage, a most unwelcome development, aims to negate the importance of the voter and the vote. So that’s what most of the PR is aimed at — voter suppression by any means possible.

Suppressing voter participation, by means legal and illegal, has a long tradition in American politics. The advent of universal suffrage just meant that the effort to suppress some categories of voters would have to be augmented by depressing the rest. In other words, the low voter participation rates, even as they are regularly decried at election time, are not a happenstance. They’re a sign of success: that the conservative strategy (to retain power and control) has worked.

Republicans also discovered long ago that repression on election day is not enough to insure the wrong people don’t access the ballot box. Though it does make for good theater and focuses the attention of the press, thereby insuring that the rest of the strategy is mostly ignored. I say “mostly” because routine purging of the voter rolls between elections has gotten some attention in the press — as has the permanent banning of miscreants in some states. But, that the latter is actually consistent with promoting the notion that voting is a privilege, not an obligation of citizenship, is not generally noted. Denying a privilege is less likely to raise objections than preventing an obligation from being carried out.
Denying a privilege has dual benefits. It energizes the privileged by enhancing the value of what they are being permitted to do and it depresses both the under-privileged and those who identify with them. Depression has proved a really useful tool in a political system where the objective is to keep as many citizens uninvolved as possible. It’s this effort to depress behavior which differentiates the Southern strategy from regular marketing and regular public relations. The Times-Union story about Representative Corinne Brown is a good example of how it’s done and how the press, no doubt inadvertently, helps the effort along.

Indeed, it’s all there in the headline to the story, the lede and the first few paragraphs:

Why Corrine Brown has been unbeatable in Northeast Florida

Some say it’s career suicide to try to run a campaign against the U.S. representative

By David Hunt

As nationwide voter frustration threatens Democratic incumbents this election year, the reputed bulldog Democrat from conservative Northeast Florida says she is focused on pushing liberal platforms like public-option health care, not on campaigning.

That may sound like career suicide — for anyone but U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown. Even in a year when many of her colleagues in the Democratic House appear in trouble, the eight-term congresswoman is proceeding as if she is a lock for re-election.

This is despite competition from a half-dozen motivated challengers, some who believe that backlash against Washington is so intense that a conservative candidate could win even in Brown’s district — where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 168,000 — or even against Brown’s campaign war chest, many times larger than those of all her opponents combined.

Given the context of suppressing and depressing voter participation, the following components of the strategy are almost self-evident:

1) Focus on the candidate for a position, rather than on those who do the hiring (the agents). That’s why the contest/horse race frame is important. “Brown … unbeatable” serves to intimidate people who don’t relish being beat upon and discourages others from getting involved. Fewer Democrats stepping forward = fewer choices and fewer supporters energized for the general election and turns the office into something nobody wants.

2) Render the whole process unsavory and something to avoid. “Some say … suicide” is not only nicely alliterative (and takes some of the sting off the suggested outcome), but reinforces the sensation of unsavoriness. It’s a negative sentence without saying anything bad. The reporter likely has no awareness of how he’s being used by those unnamed “some.”

3) Direct attention to the opponent. This creates the impression of being interested in other people, an attractive characteristic, and generates gossip — i.e. entertainment, instead of concern for substance. Republicans’ focus on other people and their moral failings isn’t necessarily hypocritical. Rather, it relieves them of having to put forward an agenda of their own; much less one that can actually be accomplished. (Republican politicians, in particular, have discovered that impossibilities are a recipe for long tenure. Failure permits them to ”try and try again.”)

4) Ascribe obvious personal deficiencies and deficits to the opponents. This worked spectacularly well in the contest with John Kerry. Having the envious Swiftboaters do the dirty work was pure genius. Referring to Corinne Brown as a “bulldog Democrat” (comparing her to a dog, but nicely) is not quite in the same league, but it does conceal rather effectively the depressive strategy.

5) Express solicitude for the other side to imply weakness. The threat Democrats are supposedly getting from “nationwide voter frustration” is also evidence of wishful thinking and part of the pollsters’ strategy of setting the stage for self-fulfilling prophecies. Political polling, even more than traditional market research, aims to sell a product, rather than discover what’s wanted. The reference to “voter frustration” is also an example of transference, since the flow of donations alone tells Republicans that their brand is in trouble.

6) Focus on “character” and “values.” This appeals to all those people, regardless of party identification, who place more store on who people are than on what they do — i.e. the incompetent and the lazy whose virtue lies in simply doing what they’re told, or not. Indeed, not doing, which has recently morphed into a persistent pattern of obstruction on the part of Republican politicians, may well be an expression of independence, as practiced by the party of “no.” You could say that Bartleby the Scrivener is their hero. This is, of course, part and parcel of the strategy of reducing the role of the electorate to a rubber stamp of rubber stamp representatives.

7) Predicate electoral success on the amount of money spent on campaigning. This not only reinforces the notion that candidate effort is what counts, but discourages competition from poorly funded but otherwise more qualified candidates from entering the lists. The constant campaign keeps political operatives employed (part of our ever-expanding cadre of middle men), but there’s actually little connection between money spent and electoral success. That’s partly because candidates who don’t get elected provide a more reliable stream of revenue for the pollsters, consultants and message managers. Large sums of money tend not to be well spent. But, it doesn’t matter since the Southern strategy aims to keep voters away from the polls; not get them there. When the economy goes into recession or depression, it can only help.

8) Focus the public relations effort on promoting the idea that votes at the ballot box are the beginning and end of public interest and involvement — i.e. on the most insignificant part of the process, and the least important of our rights as citizens (to hold office, to serve on juries, to draft legislation, to inspect public records, etc.). In a sense, when candidates are preselected by special interests and the traditional power structures, equally ensconced in the political parties, the outcome of elections is largely irrelevant. If every Dick and Jane gets to cast a vote, then the smart money is on making the ballot meaningless.

Is the Southern strategy only in the South? I don’t think so. It’s just one of those phrases that fit into all kinds of preconceived notions and still provides a convenient hook for the press. Lyndon Johnson had made a prediction which, considering that the traditional power structures were about to be challenged, was sort of a foregone conclusion. Though, it’s likely nobody expected the push-back against popular government (government BY the people) would last more than half a century (I’m starting the clock with the signing of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966, most recently amended in 1996), for all intents and purposes, government of the people suited conservatives’ interest in ruling with threats, just as government for the people accorded with the liberals’ preference for rewards/bribes. Converting the ruling class into public servants was bound to be difficult.

When the grassroots in New Hampshire put up a candidate against four party regulars, 51 percent of voters picked her in the primary and the same percentage retired the incumbent Republican in November. So, the story line that it couldn’t be done had to be changed and it morphed into “it was a fluke” — part of the Democratic tidal wave in 2006. Then in 2008, it was presumably Obama’s coat-tails that kept her in Congress. Because, everybody knows women can’t win.

When they do, there must be something wrong with them. When the former head of Florida’s Republican party, Tom Slade, opines that Corrine Brown

brings home too much federal money for local governments and her supporters view her as indispensable,

it’s pretty clear he’s got some preconceived notions that can’t be overcome. The idea that public servants might actually serve the public! Doesn’t seem worth the effort!

Monica Smith writes regularly at Hannah’s Blog.

Note: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for the agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of LikeTheDew.com. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click here to report a violation.

6 Responses to “PR and the Southern Strategy”

1. Matthew Wright says:

   March 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm

   Nicely done Monica. I never really think of the PR angle in politics, even though it’s a huge component. Thoroughly enjoyed your piece.

   Reply
2. Brenden says:

   March 15, 2010 at 11:02 pm

   Why don’t you just have the courage of your convictions to say, “All Republicans are racist noose-toting night riders, therefore we must hang them first” rather than blather on … soooo … tediously … about Southern Strategies, “voter supression” and PR strategies? The only fictional maleficarum calal missing in this opaque argle-bargle is Opus Dei. Maybe then it would make sense. If Corine Brown disembarks with the S.S. Louisiana Purchase/ Cornhusker Kickback to the bottom of the electoral sea, then you needn’t drag your sexton to the Louvre to seek the naked albino monk’s pubes.

   Reply
   • Monica Smith says:

     March 16, 2010 at 5:50 am

     The worst thing about this little rant is that the author identifies himself as a mad bavarian. That’s an oxymoron. Bavarians aren’t mad. As a half-bavarian myself, I know bavarians well. They may rant, but they’re not mad.
     Interestingly, the appellation “bavarian” comes from the fact that the people north of the Alps, where citrus does not grow, got their vitamin C from “Rabarbar” (rhubarb), a plant whose leaves are poisonous to humans, but whose red stems, containing that vitamin indispensable to good health, can be kept indefinitely by simply storing them in clean water. Barbarians are rhubarb eaters. Equating them with being uncivilized is a slander.

     Reply
     • erudite_recondite_eremite says:

       March 16, 2010 at 9:33 am

       Maybe he was alluding to the supposedly “mad” King Ludwig II (Otto Friedrich Wilhelm von Bayern) who loved to build castles (and not just in the sky!), or was your entire reply (especially the use of “barbarians” in the last sentence) intended as sarcastic irony?? :-) In any case, your connection of “rhubarb” with “Bavaria” and “Bavarian” (capitalized), if not sarcastic irony, is new to me.

       In regards to the etymology of the word “Bavaria” (which is not entirely indisputed):
       “Der volle Name der Baiern lautete ursprünglich germanisch *baio-warioz. Überliefert ist dieser als Baiwaren, Baioaren, Bajoras, latinisiert Bavarii, Baioarii. Es wird angenommen, dass es sich dabei um ein Endonym (= Selbstbezeichnung) handelt. Hinter dem Erstglied baio steckt der Name des keltischen Stammes der Boier, der auch im Landschaftsnamen Böhmen (germanisch latinisiert boio-hemum = Heim der Boier) erhalten ist.” http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajuwaren
       In other words eponymous.

       In regards to rhubarb, it seems to be unlikely to be related:
       “The plant has grown wild along the banks of the River Volga for centuries but this variety was known to the west as Russian rhubarb, as opposed to the more efficacious Chinese rhubarb. The expense of transportion across Asia caused rhubarb to be highly expensive in medieval Europe where it was several times the price of other valuable herbs and spices such as cinnamon, opium and saffron. The merchant explorer, Marco Polo, was therefore much interested to find the plant being grown and harvested in the mountains of Tangut province.[3]

       “The term rhubarb is a combination of the Greek rha and barbarum; rha is a term that refers both to the plant and to the River Volga.[4]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhubarb

       Of course, some wags have suggested that the origin of “Bavaria” was actually “Brewvaria!” :-)

       Reply
       • Monica Smith says:

         March 16, 2010 at 10:12 am

         Yes, he may well have been thinking of the Mad Ludwig whose madness was demonstrated by having castles (instead of churches?) built to encourage “conspicuous consumption” — i.e. by looking at the wonders man can create.
         I cannot, frankly, remember where or when I learned about rhubarb and barbarians. Perhaps it was in connection with Frederick I, called Barbarossa because of his red beard http://www.thenagain.info/Webchron/WestEurope/FredBarb.html. Very likely the Italians he subjugated considered him a barbarian. And still, Bavarians harbor resentment at the long history of trying to unify them with the rest of Germany. Whenever something goes wrong, they can proclaim “we never wanted to be part of that, anyway.”
         Being self-designated is, of course, better than being identified with a plant. Brits aren’t keen on being called “Limeys.”
         “angenommen” is the German word for “assume” — i.e. to take up or accept without much thought.

         Reply
3. Cliff Green says:

   March 17, 2010 at 10:24 pm

   To the character “Brenden”: I have the courage of my convictions. “All Republicans are racist noose-toting night riders, therefore we must hang them first…”
   Satisfied?

   Reply

Leave a Comment

Click here to cancel reply.

What is CAPTCHA and why do I have to enter it to post a comment?

Quick answer: Look at the picture (below) that contains letters. Type those letters in the CAPTCHA Code box.

Longer explanation: Our comment system now requires a CAPTCHA test (an acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart" for all comments (unless you have registered and are logged-in). CAPTCHA is an image of letters that is dynamically generated (click the speaker icon to hear it or the arrows to load another test that may be easier to read). The letters, because they're part of an image and not text (e.g. text that you could cut and paste), are difficult for a spambot or other computer program to read. Yet, a person has little trouble reading the letters in a captcha image and then typing them into the form. Using a captcha test on our website is a great way to ensure, for instance, that a person and not a spambot is filling out a web form (we used to get 100 or so spam comments every day which our volunteers had to wade through). Also, a captcha can make it difficult for a person to continuously resubmit form information and overwhelm our comment function. If you hate CAPTCHA, just register on LikeTheDew.com and login (registration is on the bottom left of our home page) and you won't be stopped by CAPTCHA.

CAPTCHA Code

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website