Why are so many Southerners so pro-militarism and anti-liberty?

[FSP-Rebel]

This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

Like I've said, the southerners have lost their way. They are no longer the soveriengty fans of the past. They've learned other things in the public schools. The OLD south is Gone with the Wind, thanx to the contemporarys. Leave it up to a guy in Mich to understand the culture of the South. History speaks, I guess.

 

[jblosser]

What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

With respect, let us know when you've been elected to Congress 10 times and have been invited to speak to a packed house at one of the biggest companies in the country. Dr. Paul doesn't campaign, he speaks what he sees as truth and hopes he can get people to listen. He never expected to win once and doesn't care if he wins now or not, he's not going to compromise.

Of course it bucks conventional wisdom but this time at least people are responding to it.

 

[cac1963]

Church influence in local elections, Macon Ga

In general, is there any difference between the Black Churches and the White Churches in regards to blindly following their preachers? Are Black Southerners also gung-ho on Israel?

Here is an article that ran about a week ago, before our city elections this Tuesday. Nothing specific about Israel, but still relevant to the churches' influence over elections in racially mixed populations.

Praying for votes: Churches playing role in Macon elections
There is a commonly held tenet to Macon politics: You can't get elected without the churches.

Specifically, that means black churches, which have a long tradition as a political linchpin in the South.

And in Macon, where about 60 percent of voters are black, candidates see a preacher's endorsement not just as feather in their campaign caps but as a nearly crucial part of election strategy.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Just vote for Clinton or McCain and spare us your stupid rationalization for why you wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul. You want bedside manner? That's exactly what you've received from every main-stream-media politician! If you want the truth, you need to stick to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't care to coddle the masses(your "sick patient"), that's what every other candidate does. He means what he says and he says what he means. You can either accept it or ignore it. But you CAN NOT change it! That is Dr. Paul's true principle!

Ease up, hoss!

Where did the man say he wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul?

There's nothing wrong with carefully considering the words one chooses when presenting 'radical' concepts. It seems to me that's all he was saying.

 

[Moneychanger]

This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

This is an awesome post, LastoftheMohicans! A very succinct history lesson wrapped in a dilema. What to do, what to say.

Damn!

I've tried writing just a small answer and I can't. Not thoroughly, anyway. It's because I don't believe there is a South and a North anymore. I think we have two factions of state-worshippers and a small (but growing!) anti-state worshippers. You might have some good evidence that the Southern states worship the state more than the Northern states, but I would bet that they are pretty much even in the long run.

Instead of separating people between geographical boundries, let's just draw them out philosophically: for state or anti-state. I think we'll get further this way.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

Because down here men are more concerned with College Football. Down here you can be Pro-Life yet support killing in war. Down here you're a "real man" if you kill things, as long as it's not babies.

 

[cac1963]

Signs that the stubborn south can be cracked

Some good signs that the Bush love (whether neocon or religiously-motivated) is wearing off in the south, at least from a Georgian's perspective:

*Ralph Reed, typical Rove, Abramoff-linked candidate running for lt. governor of our state last year, lost the election to relative newcomer Casey Cagle.

*Paul Broun's anticipated victory in heavy GOP territory of northeast Georgia this Tuesday, running largely on a biblically-laced constitutionalist platform, against the GOP establishment-backed Whitehead. The absentee ballots are still being counted, and Whitehead isn't conceding, but there are not enough absentee ballots to make up the almost 400 vote difference between the two.

*Two Democrat incumbent representatives, without national Dem party support, fended off Bush-backed GOP challengers in 2006, Jim Marshall in Macon, and John Barrow in Savannah. (Though both Dems also backed Bush's war in Iraq). These two seats were believed to be the most critical for the GOP to try to retain control of the House.

Edit: also factor in the results of Tuesday's city elections in which incumbents lost heavily in what amounted to a public flush of the municipal toilets, and you get the sense that people are READY for change in our government.

I think these recent events indicate that non-establishment, anti-status quo candidates have very good chances in the South, at least in Georgia.

 

[foofighter20x]

I'd say the biggest cause for concern in the south is the Evangelical Christians. Not all of them, mind you, just the ones that give them a bad name.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Lincoln's legacy.

 

[torchbearer]

Lincoln's legacy.

The war of nothern aggression?

 

[SeanEdwards]

I think the south has a very strong military tradition that often goes back several generations. I think this may at least partially be due to the economic damage done to the region after the civil war. Military service was probably an attractive career option to people without lots of choices. Then when you get entire communities that are heavily involved with the military it begins to affect their worldview.

Military culture is very focused on uniformity and obedience. These attributes are critical to get people to charge into enemy fire and operate effectively as a team. These character traits probably spill over into general attitudes about what patriotism means. These people that value discipline and obedience are probably more likely to follow the guidance of people they recognize as leaders, and be less inclined towards independent thought.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

 

[Paul-O-Holic]

A Southern Response

This has been something that has been
Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying?

I'm originally from South Georgia, and I would say that you are correct. However, I will have to say that Ron Paul's message is definitely gaining ground in the South. I firmly believe that if he can get to the South and get his message out, the ENTIRE South will go Ron Paul. The South wants the federal government to leave them the hell alone. As you correctly stated, we've already fought one war over it, and if the trend of bigger and bigger government doesn't stop, we will fight another one in the coming years.

In fact, a colleague of mine was recently in Greenville, SC, and happened to stop and eat at a restaurant where they were having a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting. He said that they all had Ron Paul stickers all over their cars and were wearing Ron Paul shirts. As you can see here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=cYKQ2T31AzA, I was recently at a Toby Keith concert in Bristow, VA spreading the good word to my fellow Southerners.

The response I received was good, except for one group of guys who called me a "pussy" because I support Ron Paul. The reason they called me this is because of his "unwillingness to fight radical islam." But I'm telling you, if Ron Paul can reach the South and explain his foreign policy as one of non-interventionism, just like the Founders, then a lot of the Neo-Cons in the South should come around. One of the guys in the group ended up agreeing with me -- one more for the good guys.

Hell, I used to be such a Neo-Con that, for my honeymoon last year, my wife and I went to a Freedom Concert and met Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter! And I used to go and do pro-war protest with the Freepers.

But thanks to LRC, Mises, and, most of all, Ron Paul, I have seen the light and am now a Libertarian. Ron Paul has a way of explaining his foreign policy where even a Neo-Con, unless they are in denial, will realize that Ron Paul is right.

 

[walt]

Do they have the Internet in the south?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Originally Posted by bygone View Post
What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

I think what bygone is getting at here, has nothing whatsoever to do with changing Dr. Paul's principles, but instead how to make them more palatable to the general public. I agree with him on a lot of what he said too.

However, Dr. Paul is unlikely to change the way he has always chosen to speak plainly about the issues, just the way he sees them. That is, after all, one of the reasons we admire him so much.

Perhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

 

[jblosser]

I think what bygone is getting at here, has nothing whatsoever to do with changing Dr. Paul's principles, but instead how to make them more palatable to the general public. I agree with him on a lot of what he said too.

However, Dr. Paul is unlikely to change the way he has always chosen to speak plainly about the issues, just the way he sees them. That is, after all, one of the reasons we admire him so much.

Perhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

Dr. Paul is demonstrating to us that what people today are finding most palatable is someone speaking an uncompromised message. People are sick of politicians who play these games and "customise" the message to the audience. They are sick of it to the point that they are willing to listen to someone they don't agree with on some major things and support him anyway because they believe he will do what he says. The man sat in California at Google's headquarters and said abortion was murder and we should abolish the IRS and most government welfare programs, for pete's sake.

As much as I want Dr. Paul president, his goal so far has not been to get people on the RP train, it has been to deliver a message of liberty and allow people to respond to it. I am sticking with him on this.

 

[MsDoodahs]

IPerhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

Shooting ourselves in the foot...an RP supporter who opens with "I know you don't have the internet down here" or "you people are blinded by your stupid religion" in a small town in the South.

Lots of Southerners will pick up on that attitude without the RP supporter saying a word.

 

[jblosser]

Shooting ourselves in the foot...an RP supporter who opens with "I know you don't have the internet down here" or "you people are blinded by your stupid religion" in a small town in the South.

Lots of Southerners will pick up on that attitude without the RP supporter saying a word.

I do find it hilarious people make those comments considering Dr. Paul represents a farming and military community in East Texas. Silly yankees and their complexes, eh?

 

[Carbine556]

Do they have the Internet in the south?

LOL!!

This wouldn't be so funny to me if I hadn't just come from home where my mother doesn't have internet, and even if they did get internet, the best they would be able to get would be dial up, at about 14.4 kbps. My folks' computer crapped out on them and have gotten along just fine without a computer for several months so they just cancelled their service rather than pay the bill for something that was useless to them (with a broken computer, I mean). So, I have to give my mom all of her Ron Paul news.

But yes, they do have the internet in the South. We even wear shoes down there.

 

[MsDoodahs]

I have dial up, too. It's a trade off, between living where I am (very rural) or living somewhere more crowded.

I value this very rural setting more than I value high speed internet access.

lol...I guess you could say that on a personal level, I'm...isolationist.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I'm originally from South Georgia, and I would say that you are correct. However, I will have to say that Ron Paul's message is definitely gaining ground in the South. I firmly believe that if he can get to the South and get his message out, the ENTIRE South will go Ron Paul. The South wants the federal government to leave them the hell alone. As you correctly stated, we've already fought one war over it, and if the trend of bigger and bigger government doesn't stop, we will fight another one in the coming years.

In fact, a colleague of mine was recently in Greenville, SC, and happened to stop and eat at a restaurant where they were having a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting. He said that they all had Ron Paul stickers all over their cars and were wearing Ron Paul shirts. As you can see here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=cYKQ2T31AzA, I was recently at a Toby Keith concert in Bristow, VA spreading the good word to my fellow Southerners.

The response I received was good, except for one group of guys who called me a "pussy" because I support Ron Paul. The reason they called me this is because of his "unwillingness to fight radical islam." But I'm telling you, if Ron Paul can reach the South and explain his foreign policy as one of non-interventionism, just like the Founders, then a lot of the Neo-Cons in the South should come around. One of the guys in the group ended up agreeing with me -- one more for the good guys.

Hell, I used to be such a Neo-Con that, for my honeymoon last year, my wife and I went to a Freedom Concert and met Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter! And I used to go and do pro-war protest with the Freepers.

But thanks to LRC, Mises, and, most of all, Ron Paul, I have seen the light and am now a Libertarian. Ron Paul has a way of explaining his foreign policy where even a Neo-Con, unless they are in denial, will realize that Ron Paul is right.

Hey, good job, man. Congratulations on coming around to the good guys.

Interesting that you were at a Toby Keith concert spreading the word. I heard him on the radio the other day backpedaling on the hawkishness. He was basically saying that all those 'let's kick ass and take names' -type songs were about going after the guys who did 9/11, not about starting wars in other countries like Iraq. He was also saying that we need to let the Iraqi government take over and come home.

I took that as a heartening sign...