R-E-S-P-E-C-T

A discussion over at TPM Cafe about the Republicans' appeals to anti-intellectual sentiment (current and historical) has prompted some complaints of regional prejudice against the South. I find this extremely puzzling. It is the Republicans who are showing their contempt for Americans in general, and Southerners in particular, by appealing to anti-intellectualism; Democratic presidential campaigns, for better or worse (usually worse), generally show enough respect for all Americans to stay (more or less) focused on the issues.

What's more, in practical terms the regional prejudice flows almost entirely in the other direction: there are more Texans who would never vote for a New Yorker than New Yorkers who would never vote for a Texan. Hostility toward the Northeast wasn't just tolerated--it was an important subtext of the Republican campaign. When the South is demonized in a campaign the way the Northeast (and, of course, 'Hollywood') are, then, I'll have a little more sympathy for Southerners who complain about regional prejudice.

That said, the Democrats' inability to appeal to large areas of the nation is a genuine problem. Commenter Nobody, responding to the complainers, asks an extremely sensible question:

Just because I'm curious--what, exactly, is involved in treating rural and/or traditional-minded Americans with respect? I often hear that we're being condescending or somesuch, but I'm not entirely sure how we're supposed to behave towards them.

Commenter Sinceimust suggests an answer:

1. Respect would mean--for all of our political culture, which seems at times "respect-free"--disagreeing with the argument, not judging/labeling the person arguing; there's a pervasive, lazy tendency in American political "discussion" to argue from subject position or dismiss arguments by subject position rather than to engage ideas.

2. Respect might mean reminding yourself that as vehemently as you disagree with them these people have reasons for their beliefs, and that the apparatuses through which these beliefs are produced and disseminated, because two people looking at each other and calling each other benighted is not enlightening.

I think both points good principles in any case, but not all that helpful in this situation. For one thing, avoiding ad hominem attacks and acknowledging the validity of alternative beliefs does nothing to mollify people who believe in an absolute truth received from Authority, because the act of disagreement (no matter how respectfully it is expressed) in itself constitutes disrespect for the Authority (and thus for those who believe in the Authority). This is why attempts at dialogue with fundamentalists tend to take such a surreal turn: the liberal rationalist assumption that people who disagree can work out a rational accommodation simply does not exist in fundamentalist psychology.

The other problem is that the second principle just doesn't always apply; some beliefs are not just benighted but dangerously benighted, and even feigned respect confers more legitimacy than they deserve. Respect for bigotry does none of us any good (as Nobody correctly points out).

As an example of where I draw the line, let's take religious beliefs about homosexuality. I would say that no matter how much I disagree with it, the purely religious belief that homosexuality is sinful deserves respect as a product of religious tradition and individual conscience. The belief that civil society should enforce this sentiment does not deserve respect, because it advocates a violation of the individual beliefs (religious or otherwise) of everybody else; it becomes bigotry in a practical sense. (As an aside, there is also no scriptural basis for this approach, unless I missed the part where Jesus advocated getting the Romans to enforce his rules on everybody.) When I argue with those who hold anti-gay beliefs, I make a point of saying I respect their individual religious beliefs even though I disagree with them; what I object to is their desire to make society conform to them. As noted above, this gets me nowhere with the fundamentalists, but it can score points with the neutrals.

So 'respect' on cultural issues: not a promising strategy.

That doesn't mean it's hopeless. People are more than the sum of their cultural prejudices; I think the best way to show respect is to acknowledge that and address their non-cultural concerns. I believe very strongly that every one of the 50 states would be better off with a Democratic president; most Alabamans (for example) are worse off under Bush than they would have been under Gore or Kerry, however they may have voted. The more the national party understands about local and regional concerns, the better we can make that case to them. Get to know their industries, their environment, their communities, whatever they are proud of and whatever makes their lives difficult. Think long and hard about how to address them. That would be showing genuine respect--not the sort of shameful pandering the Republicans have turned into an art form, the sort some Democrats want to practice as amateurs.

Chairman Dean's 50-state strategy can be a big step in this direction. Maybe--probably--this would yield only limited benefits. It's certainly no magic bullet. It can't hurt, though...and it has the added value of being an honest attempt to make things better for the people we want to vote Democratic--without throwing anybody overboard.

[That's all, folks]