Over the past few days, there has been a good bit of Internet chatter about whether or not President-elect Obama somehow is "snubbing" the South by not appointing prominent Southerners (whatever that means) to high offices. The debate seems to have two players: traditional news sources, like the AP, that are reporting on the perceived slights to the region and progressive bloggers who are saying that Southerners (whatever that means) are whiners.
My initial reaction was to chalk the whole thing up to pundits and reporters reverting to type. Mainstream reporters have gotten so used to writing stories about what makes the South different, while progressive blogger types never miss an opportunity to indulge in the cheap Southern stereotypes favored by intellectual, Northeastern types and bash the region. (To boot, the very idea of a monolithic South seems terribly flawed to me.)
That said, I would have thought that some more prominent faces from North Carolina and Virginia would have shown up by now. After all, Obama did win those states, but the long-term challenge will be holding them, specifically holding them in a way that generates support for progressive Democrats as opposed to the traditional conservative ones.
For those of you who worked on Obama's campaign in North Carolina, what do you think? Is Obama doing things that are sustaining the support for him that existed? Are there things that he could do that would help build long-term support for progressive Democrats? Is there an element of truth in a discussion I initially wanted to dismiss as silly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Even as a born and bred southerner, i really don't see the big deal- it makes more sense to me to make sure that the cabinet is diverse in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc rather than geography. And, im not so sure that having a few southerners on his cabinet would really help to redeliver NC and VA because most people don't really pay attention to that. The substance of what his cabinet members have to offer and how that impacts the south and our fine state i think are much more important to watch.
Happy to hear that. I would like to think that substance comes first.
One question though, do you think there might be some substantive policy areas where having a "Southerner" might lead to better policy results?
Take for example, urban policy. Southern metro areas (Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, etc.) look and behave differently than traditional northern urban areas. Without some southern perspective, might policies fitting for those places be ignored?
I haven't commented or posted yet but I thought this question would be a good place to start since I heard my dad complain about it so much over the holidays.
My father is a retired NC State entomologist and agriculture professor who ran several organic farms in North Carolina and taught farmers to use integrated pest management techniques instead of pesticides.
He feels very strongly, and has for years, that a southerner should run the Department of Agriculture instead of a Midwesterner.
He points out that in the Midwest the farms are unimaginably large and everyone involved with agriculture policy there is beholden to big agribusiness.
In the South small farms are more the norm and, at least in his opinion, scientists here have more cutting-edge and interesting ideas about integrated pest management and the use of organic techniques.
A Southerner would also, presumably, not have the immediate ties to agribusiness and what my dad calls "idiotic corn subsidies".
I don't have a particular opinion on appointing Southerners, but that is one example where a Southerner might promote better policies.
Post a Comment