THE WORLD FROM WASHINGTON
Michael Hirsh
How the South Won (This) Civil War
Southernism is taking over our national dialogue. Maybe it's time for the North to secede from the Union.
In the summer of 1863, Robert E. Lee led an ill-advised incursion into Pennsylvania. His army was defeated at Gettysburg, and thence afterward Lee beat a fighting retreat until the South lost the Civil War. One hundred and forty-five years later, the South—or what has become the South-Southwest—has won another kind of Civil War. It has transformed the sensibility of the country. It is setting the agenda for our political, social and religious mores—in Pennsylvania and everywhere else.
This thought, which has been recurring to me regularly over the years as I've watched the Southernization of our national politics at the hands of the GOP and its evangelical base, surfaced again when I read a New York Times story today. The article was about an "American Idol" contestant—apparently quite talented—who was eliminated after she sang the title song from "Jesus Christ Superstar." When it debuted 38 years ago, the rock opera was considered controversial for its rather arch portrayal of a doubt-wracked, very human Jesus, but the music was so good and the lyrics so clever that it quickly became a huge hit. In the delicate balance of forces that have always defined American tastes—nativism and yahooism versus eagerness for the new and openness to innovation—art, or at least high craft, it seemed, had triumphed. But our national common denominator of taste is so altered today that the blasphemous dimension of "Jesus Christ Superstar" now trumps the artistic part. And somehow, no one is surprised. Our reaction is more like, "Why would she risk singing a song like that?"
In part this is a triumph of demographics. As John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge observed in their 2004 book, "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America," the nation's population center has been "moving south and west at a rate of three feet an hour, five miles a year." Another author, Anatol Lieven, in his 2005 book "America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism," describes how the "radical nationalism" that has so dominated the nation's discourse since 9/11 traces its origins to the demographic makeup and mores of the South and much of the West and Southern Midwest—in other words, what we know today as Red State America. This region was heavily settled by Scots-Irish immigrants—the same ethnic mix King James I sent to Northern Ireland to clear out the native Celtic Catholics. After succeeding at that, they then settled the American Frontier, suffering Indian raids and fighting for their lives every step of the way. And the Southern frontiersmen never got over their hatred of the East Coast elites and a belief in the morality and nobility of defying them. Their champion was the Indian-fighter Andrew Jackson. The outcome was that a substantial portion of the new nation developed, over many generations, a rather savage, unsophisticated set of mores. Traditionally, it has been balanced by a more diplomatic, communitarian Yankee sensibility from the Northeast and upper Midwest. But that latter sensibility has been losing ground in population numbers—and cultural weight.
The coarsened sensibility that this now-dominant Southernism and frontierism has brought to our national dialogue is unmistakable. We must endure "lapel-pin politics" that elevates the shallowest sort of faux jingoism over who's got a better plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have re-imported creationism into our political dialogue (in the form of "intelligent design"). Hillary Clinton panders shamelessly to Roman Catholics, who have allied with Southern Protestant evangelicals on questions of morality, with anti-abortionism serving as the main bridge. Barack Obama seems to be so leery of being identified as an urban Northern liberal that he's running away from the most obvious explanation of his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weatherman Bill Ayers: after Obama graduated from college he became an inner-city organizer in Chicago, and they were natural allies for someone in a situation like that. We routinely demonize organizations like the United Nations that we desperately need and which are critical to missions like nation-building in Afghanistan. On foreign policy, the realism and internationalism of the Eastern elitist tradition once kept the Southern-frontier warrior culture and Wilsonian messianism in check. Now the latter two, in toxic combination, have taken over our national dialogue, and the Easterners are running for the hills.
In Texas in particular, Lieven writes, we can see "the mingling of the Southern and Western traditions" that made its first appearance during Jackson's presidency, and which today so defines our current politics, culture, and foreign policy. Indeed, George W. Bush himself may embody this national trend best. In Bush there seems little trace left of the Eastern WASP sensibility into which he was born and educated, and which explains so much of his father's far more moderate presidency. The younger Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, but he rebelled against the ethos he learned there. The transformation is complete, right down to the Texas accent that no one else in his family seems to have. Bush is a Jacksonian pod person.
None of this is quite as simple as the triumph of the South, of course. "I'm suspicious of that argument," says Gaines M. Foster of Louisiana State University, author of "Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost Cause, and the Emergence of the New South, 1865-1913." "The Civil War was essentially about preserving slavery and acquiring independence. And the South lost both of those things. And gave them up." Beyond that, the Old South is gone with the wind in other ways, having suffered a hybridization from Northern and Midwestern influences. "At least one of four people in the South were not born here. Even 'Southern' is now a fuzzy term," Foster told me. And as Mike Huckabee demonstrated when he failed to spread his appeal beyond his Southern base, there is such a thing as too Southern. Polls show that at least as many Americans think Barack Obama shares their values as John McCain.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: tider @ 05/23/2008 6:41:40 AM
Comment: You should be writing an article called, "What's Wrong with Chicago?" instead of an article that is essentially.
"What's Wrong with the South?" How could a "church" flourish with 15,000 members while spouting race-baiting garbage? How could 39 people be shot in Chicago in one weekend (virtually all black) unless northern culture has completely broken down? The fault lies not in your southern stars, but in yourselves.
Reading your repeated insults, "Coarse" Southernism, ""Vulgar" Southernism, just lets me know what a fire-breathing racist you are, Michael Hirsh, but you are the most pitiful kind of racist, the self-hating kind bred by a perverse self-hating white liberal "culture." If you want to know what northern "culture" is, then take a look at
MTV, or HBO, or the FX channel, all vulgar and enemies of anything commonly decent. I can smell the stench of your cultural rot, Michael Hirsh, and the flies are buzzing.
Posted By: thyphenw @ 05/19/2008 4:30:28 PM
Comment: The primary claim in this article is that the United States is becoming more Southern and evangelical in its perspective. The article continues to claim that this fact has been invasive in our political and social fabric ever increasingly.
I have lived and worked on the West Coast, the Northeast, and the Southeast. In my personal experience, I have witnessed a definitive evangelical tidal wave. I read an article in The New York Times several years ago that better and more factually argues this point than Mr. Hirsch. This movement really began in the fundamentalist, evangelical, and Pentecostal movements in the ???tent churches??? all over the country during the early years of the twentieth century. They began in poor rural areas where wayward preachers could gain a foothold with their tainted religious beliefs not justified by thousands of years of Christian development. People in these areas were craving to find solace, strength, and a reason to live. They found their crutch in someone who seemingly promised them hope in their hopeless lives. Over the decades, these belief systems and off shoots of the Christian faith grew and the people who believed in these new ideas became wealthy. Now as a result of the influence gained in sheer numbers of people and their personal wealth, these fundamentalists and their ideals have taken over the very political, religious and social perspectives we have today.
I completely disagree with Mr. Hirsch???s claims of these ideals being an influence of Southerners alone. His article is not only partially incorrect but insulting and arrogant. It seemingly claims that only enlightened people live in and are from the Northeast and the rest of the country is barbaric since its very inception. Not only is the article ambiguous but it is also ludicrous. The article seems more of a personal tirade had at an evening cocktail party with a bunch of "wanna-bes" that he happened to remember the next day. His sad decision to publicize it makes him look ridiculous as an author. The frightening reality is that he is a highly regarded writer for Newsweek Magazine. His claims are biased and untrustworthy. It is as if his article is written to underhandedly sell the reader on some idea in order to gain political influence for who he wants to be President of the United States. Thus his argument is incredible and does more to harm him and his claims than to persuade anyone who is critically reading it.
Mr. Hirsch should realize his kind of "intellectualism" is exactly why the world continues to battle. He draws lines in the sand rather than keeping an open mind and dialogue with others. It is a laughable idea that only those who remain in New England are open minded and intellectual worst of all the elite society. No matter how many college degrees you earn, Mr. Hirsch, you will never earn the right to speak down to hundreds of millions of people.
David Sanchez
Posted By: cethsouth @ 05/02/2008 10:24:11 AM
Comment: Another elitist easterner lamenting an old southern stereotype. I'm a Tennessean and spend a great deal of time in New York, especially Long Island. Since Mr. Hirsh obviously took a great deal of time and care writing about southern stereotypes, I'd like to spend a small amount of time describing actual observations from the "enlightened" northeast. Almost everytime I'd venture out into local businesses, invariably there would be a patron being rude, and sometimes, downright abusive, to the clerk or even another patron. The arguments that ensued were filled with four letter words and were loud, uncivilized, ridiculous, and embarrassing. The impatient patron would then get into their Mercedes and finally go. I've lived in Tennessee all my life and have not had to endure such a spectacle in public at any time. Our values and upbringing do not generally permit rudeness, being impolite, disrespectful, boasting, or making a public spectacle of yourself. My southern values do not repect any person that is pretentious and unsubstantial while persuming to pass judgement - especially when that indiviual stereotypes us all. I submit, with all due respect to Mr. Hirsh, that it is the cities that have devolved into a culturally decadent and uncivil tone. To stand there and pretend to be sophisticated when you can't even maintain civil discourse illustrates the point. This article does a disservice to the fair people who live in rual or suburban setttings. All southerners know that northeasterners repeatedly mistake pretense for substance, and polish for intelligence. Being ill-mannered, impolite, selfish and disrespectful seems to be the norm in northeastern culture. How did their culture develop in this way? Maybe Mr. Hirsh can analyze this degeneration and "enlighten" himself and his neighbors to take a look in the mirror before presuming to assess a culture that he knows far less about.