Is Populism All That Popular?
why john edwards "one america" platform could shut him out of the race
2007-08-06
By William Jelani Cobb

We know, or ought to know by now, that race is the plot twist in the American storyline. Take a fairly straightforward national coming-of-age tale and factor in that four-letter word and it coils into unpredictable kinks and convolutions. That said, not even the most studied observer of this unfolding epic would've predicted our present circumstance – one in which a Southern white man with great hair finds himself trailing a black man and a white woman in the presidential polls.

Of all the Democrats running, John Edwards is the only Southern white man and he has the nerve to be a populist at that. He recently concluded a multi-state "poverty tour," which, in light of Hurricane Katrina's extended aftermath made an important statement. Coming off the GOP's gutting of Medicare, failures on education, attempts to hijack social security, support for outsourcing and ongoing regressive taxation schemes it would seem that Edwards' focus on poverty would generate a good deal of electoral traction. Instead it probably ensures that he will be unelectable.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater orchestrated the most successful failure in the history of American politics. Goldwater was crushed by Lyndon B. Johnson but the former's opposition to civil rights provided a roadmap for the future of the GOP. Nixon's famed "Southern Strategy" in 1968 entailed pointing out to whites in the former Confederacy that the Democrats were soft on race. Going back to the days of Roosevelt, the growing political profile of Northern black voters made it increasingly difficult for the Democratic Party to hold onto working class and poor whites – especially in the South. The emergence of "Reagan Democrats" sixteen years after Goldwater was partly a product of that dynamic. (It was no coincidence that Reagan gave a campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi – the site where the civil rights workers Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner disappeared – and announced to the crowd that he had "always favored states' rights.") In short, the GOP realized that race could be the wedge that cracked the Democratic Party's base in half.

Edwards is basically trying to run a reverse of the 1968 Southern strategy. He has pinned his hopes for the White House on an attempt to prove that the Republicans are soft on class. On the surface it would seem that John Edwards has grabbed a bullhorn to inform America that the sky is blue. But sometimes the obvious still needs to be pointed out. The racial plot twist has created a bizarre scenario in which an unemployed factory worker and the CEO who fired him enter the booth and vote for the same candidate. An alliance of rich people and poor people working together to keep it that way.

Only in America.

Howard Dean made a good, if awkward, point in 2004 when he said he wanted "the guys with the Confederate flags on their trucks" to vote Democrat. (This, of course, was before he shot it all to hell by catching the Holy Ghost at his own rally.) Still, no Democrat, including Bill Clinton has won the majority of the Southern white vote since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (And if Barack Obama manages to pull off the miracle of miracles, you can bet it will be because he picked off key Southwestern states, not because he appealed to white voters in the former Confederacy.)

Of course, the question is, can Edwards brand of broad-based populism even work in the South? Race is even more important than whether or not you love Jesus when it comes to predicting white Southern voting behavior. Edwards' attempt to appeal to people on the basis of class and their common economic interests also runs against a century-plus of history in which Southern populists used racism to whip poor whites into an electoral frenzy. Poor people across color lines share certain political interests. And it's been known since the days of Reconstruction †-- when poor whites clamored for the return of the white state governments that had ignored and exploited them †-- that most Southerners care more about holding black people back than they do about moving themselves forward.

It's also worth noting that most of the stand-out names in the history of racist politicking were man-of-the-people figures. Characters like George Wallace, Orval Faubus and James Vardaman were populists -- not Southern aristocratic types. Orval Faubus' furious attempts to prevent the integration of Little Rock High School in 1957 were, in fact, driven by his earlier defeat at the hands of a politician who had, quite simply, out race-baited him.

Whether it's cynical or just plain realist, it is still worth asking whether a candidate can win over Southern whites without promising to put the Negroes back in their place. And the ironic answer is: maybe.

There is an old axiom that the surest sign that one group has become fully American is that they've committed themselves to keeping another group out. †Given the fact that neither poor blacks nor poor whites seem to like poor illegal Mexicans these days, there may be a unique opportunity for a Democrat to win in the South provided he has a sufficiently red-blooded and robust anti-immigrant stance. (Middle class white guys are not the only people cheering on Lou Dobbs.) John Edwards is not that guy -- immigration policy is not even listed on his website among the issues he has made part of his platform. And you probably wouldn't want him to be. Still, you have to appreciate the irony of a Southern white politician whose Achilles heel is that he comes up short on his racism quotient.

Click here for Campaign '08 coverage 

William Jelani Cobb, Ph.D. is an associate professor of history at Spelman College. His third book, now available from NYU Press: To The Break of Dawn: A Freestyle on the Hip Hop Aesthetic