One Nation Under God, Indivisible: A Final Appeal

          I’m a proud Southerner. Of course, as a Christian, I’m not “proud” in the sense of having achieved something and thinking I’ve done it by my own efforts. I mean it in the sense of “very glad to be associated with. . .” I was born in Dallas, TX, and as long as I and my wife live here in the U.S., there’s nowhere else we want to be than in this area.

            I love Texas. I love the weather, believe it or not, since I’d much rather put up with 110-degree days than 40-degree days. I love the people, who tend to be friendlier than those I’ve met in other parts of the country. I love Chicken-Fried Steaks and watermelon and grits and barbeque.

            But it’s more than that. I love the fact that my state has been run by fairly conservative Republicans for decades now. Property taxes tend to be much lower, there’s no state income tax, and environmental regulations are sane. Businesses aren’t maligned or treated as the enemy of humanity. Churches (Bible-believing ones, not just country clubs with stained windows) are largely respected and flourishing (at least in comparison with other places).

            This is a great state in which to live, and lots of people agree with me. We have more representatives in Congress than we did a decade ago. Know why? Because people are tripping all over themselves in fleeing their own states and coming to this one. Our population is booming, while states like California are hemorrhaging people almost too fast to count. When people want lower taxes, great job opportunities, and mild winters, they come to Texas (and I guess other Southern states too). For several years in a row, more jobs have been created in Texas than in all the other 49 states combined. Check this out:

            And I really really really resent the picture that non-Southerners tend to paint of my state. To people up in the Northeast, this whole region is backwards and horribly racist. To hear some people tell it, you wouldn’t be surprised to see separate water fountains and “Whites Only” signs today. I guess that’s why blacks, along with everyone else, are coming here just as fast as they possibly can.

            Have I made myself clear on this? I hope so. Because I’m going to offer this appeal to my fellow conservatives one more time:

PLEASE. STOP. DEFENDING. THE. CONFEDERACY.

            Perhaps it’s just me, but I feel a little weird just having to make this case. I mean, the only viable political expression of the conservative movement right now is the Republican Party, and this is the Party of Lincoln. He was the first president we got elected. Look, I'm not really here to bash Democrats as much as to uplift the conservative movement, but to be brutally frank, it’s the Democratic Party which has historically been on the wrong side of all this. It was the Democratic Party which was the party of slavery, or Jim Crow, of segregation, of standing in doors of school houses, of Bull Connor with fire hoses and dogs. The Republican Party has always been the party of Lincoln, of the 13th thru the 15th Amendments (over the strident opposition of the Democrats), of civil rights bill after civil rights bill after civil rights bill, up to and including the famous one in 1964. If you have any doubts about that, check out this very informative piece by Kevin D. Williamson on the history of this. To my fellow conservatives who’re trying to make the case for the Confederacy, doesn’t that make you feel a little odd right off the bat, to be defending the side of Southern Democrats? Doesn't it feel a little weird to you?

            Now, maybe you haven’t been persuaded by my eighteen other postings on this, which cited history, logic, and an appeal to conservative principles. OK. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that you’re right and I’m wrong. The South was right and had a right to secede from the Union. The Civil War (or “The War of Northern Aggression”) had little or nothing to do with slavery, and it was all about something else, like tariffs. Lincoln was a tyrant, the most despotic president we’ve ever had, and it’s because of him that we have an overreaching federal government today.

            Taking that assumption for a moment, let’s imagine you making your case for conservative (i.e. "classical liberal") principles. You’re trying to not only encourage your fellow conservatives but also to persuade others who don’t already agree with you that political conservatism is correct. 

            You can divide up your audience into three main groups. Group 1) is made up of those people who already agree with you, or mostly agree with you. Group 2) contains those who disagree with you or mostly disagree with you: Liberals/Progressives/Leftists, whichever term they’re using this week. And Group 3) . . . ahhh, that’s a pretty important group, isn't it? That’s the group made up of those “on the fence,” or “independents,” or “moderates.” They already naturally agree with you on some issues, but on others they need some persuasion. And they can be persuaded. If you sat down with them and submitted your evidence and presented your case, you’re likely to pull some of them over to your side. There’s a good possibility that a good portion of them will move over from Group #3 to Group #1.
            I really can't overemphasize the importance of pulling people from Group #3 over to Group #1. The only way you're going to win elections is by doing so. Our base is pretty much already voting at capacity. As far as Group #2 is concerned, well, anything's possible, but realistically they're going to have to move to Group #3 before they're potential candidates for recruitment to your point of view, if they're going to move at all. Your best bet is reaching out to people who are on the fence but who could be persuaded to come mostly over to your side and vote along with you in order to politically move the country the way you'd like. 

            Then let’s imagine that you introduce one of your favorite topics: Defending the Confederacy, and making the case that secession is a great idea for today. What’s going to be the effect on all three groups?

            The first group is unlikely to be really affected much. They already agree with you on the conservative agenda, and although they might disagree with you about the Confederacy, they’re likely not going to make a big deal over it.

            With the second group, not only will this not persuade them over to your side, but they’re likely to use your defense of the Confederacy in order to undermine your case you’re trying to make to Group # 3! They’re going to tell people in Group #3 “See, I told you they’re racist! I told you that they long for white supremacy! Now, come election day, you need to remember this.”

            My friends, I promise you that if you’re reading this blog, you’re much more “plugged in” and aware than most people in Group #3. This in no way disparages them, but they tend to spend a lot more time taking care of their personal lives, and to be brutally frank they don’t pay attention to most political pundits (left or right) much at all. They probably don’t pay much attention to political news, much less political interpreters.

            But as soon as they hear you singing the praises of the Antebellum South, they immediately stop listening to you. They’re not going to hear you go on to explain that you’re really not a racist and it was all about state’s rights and not about slavery, and big government is bad and btw it was all started by Lincoln. Yes, you’re going to persuade a lot of fence-sitters to come over to your side by telling them that Lincoln—one of the top two most popular presidents we’ve ever had--was a horrible evil dictator.  That’ll work out well.

            Let me try to clarify what I’m saying. By defending the Confederacy, the only effect you’re likely to bring about re: the conservative movement is purely negative.

            Several years ago I read a really important book by Frank Luntz entitled Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. The subtitle gives away his main point. The book’s marketed towards sales people, but it applies to anyone attempting persuasion. If you want to persuade people who don’t already agree with you, then you have to examine how what you’re saying is going to be interpreted by your listeners. This isn’t a case for deception, but for making your presentation in the most attractive way possible and not making it in a way that immediately turns off your audience.

            And can I please point something out? Group # 3 as I described them applies to a lot of black people. There’s a huge swath of blacks who already agree with you on a lot of things, but they’ve been told by literally everyone around them—their parents, their friends, their co-workers, their fellow church-goers—that the Republican Party is the bastion of racism. I can’t believe I have to point this out, but here goes: The only way the conservative movement—and it’s most viable expression as the Republican Party—is going to survive, much less grow, is by bringing in more minorities, especially blacks. I’m not totally clear on how to bring blacks back into the Republican Party (their historical home for decades after the Civil War), but I know how not to bring them in: Start out by telling them that the South was right and that Lincoln was a tyrant.
            The Left has a narrative it's trying to push, and to be brutally frank, it's largely succeeded in the black community. Their narrative is that conservatives in general--especially in their main expression in the Republican Party--are racist. They want blacks to believe that if we had our way, if we could wave a magic wand and transform this country into our preferred vision, then blacks would be sitting in the back of the bus, if not back on the plantation in bondage. They want blacks to believe that they (the Democrats) are the only thing holding us back from reinstituting Jim Crow and separate drinking fountains, and deep down inside, we're really longing for the days of slavery.
            Along with this is a prejudice--working alongside a convenient fiction--that the South is horribly racist, much more racist than other parts of the country. It's also much more politically conservative. In my beloved state of Texas, we've been blessed with one-party rule by Republicans for decades. And when you defend the slavery-loving Confederacy and use the flag flown by KKK'ers and segregationists standing in schoolhouse doors, you feed into the narrative promoted by Democrats, that the South is 1) Republican and conservative, and 2) horribly racist. It's all of one piece to them, and you're helping them.
            And on top of that, you're letting the Democrats get away with a whitewashing of their own sordid history. Everything you associate with the worst of the worst of our racial history (everything from slavery to the KKK to Jim Crow) was virtually all led by Democrats. Why are you letting them off the hook like that?
            To my Neo-Confederate friends, when you say one word in defense of the Antebellum South, when you say that it was right to secede, when you even use the term "states rights," please be aware that you're helping the Democrats feed blacks this narrative. To the degree that anyone is listening to you at all, you're putting off the day when blacks come back into their historical home, the Republican Party.
            Do you notice what I just mentioned? Let's ponder that for a moment. For decades after its founding in 1854, the Republican Party was pretty much the only political home for blacks, since the Democratic Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow and racial oppression in general, while the Republican was the party of Lincoln and Emancipation and Reconstruction and civil rights. Frederick Douglass, one of the most prominent black abolitionists of the 19th century, had plenty of criticism of the Republican Party and Lincoln, at least at first. Basically his grief with them was that the Party was moving too slowly and too cautiously in the right direction. But in the final analysis, this is what he said about them: "I recognize the Republican party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety."
            Unfortunately, that changed starting around the 1930's and gaining its peak in the 1960's. Martin Luther King Senior (as opposed to his much more famous son) was an outspoken Republican. Nowadays, pretty much any Democratic candidate can expect upwards of 85-90% (or higher) of the black vote just by virtue of the "D" by his name.
            We can change this. We must change this. I long for the day in which blacks return to their historical home. But you, Mr. Neo-Confederate--to the extent anyone is listening to you--you are putting this day off indefinitely. And on top of this, I'd argue that you're turning them away from us needlessly.

            I just have to ask: What exactly do you hope to gain by defending the Confederacy? Do you actually think that the conservative case is missing something if we don’t also do this? Is defending the Confederacy somehow a sine qua non of conservatism? Really? How, exactly?

            And if it’s not absolutely necessary, why bring it up?

            And along with my first plea, I’m going to submit a congruent one:

Stop. Talking. About. Secession.

            Of course what I’m talking about is the often-expressed wish among Neo-Confederates for a modern secessionist movement to take root and end in a split between freedom-loving conservative states and nanny-state loving ones, which would supposedly align (mostly) with what happened the last time the nation divided.

            No. Please don’t.

            Naturally I’m not referring to people who joke about such things. If you’re sincerely joking about it, fine. But in the past few years as we’ve had a president who seems more and more interested in growing federal power and running roughshod over his political opponents and the Constitution, some conservatives have hinted or even talked openly about splitting the country.

            The same example I cited above applies: The only measurable effect such talk will have is to ensure that the people whom you fear most will get more and more power. We’re not going to secede from the rest of the country. It’s not going to happen. Learn to work within the system—with all its flaws and abuses—to turn the country back in the direction you want it to go.

            Let me say one last word to those who have ancestral relatives who fought and died on the Southern side on the front lines. I think I get it. By denying the “noble cause” meme, I’m besmirching your relatives, some of whom fought bravely for what they believed in. As we discussed near the beginning of this series, I’m not denying their personal sacrifices and bravery, and I have no problem accepting that they were completely sincere in what they were fighting for. Maybe in their minds they were fighting an invading army and for their own freedom from tyranny. I feel for you. I really do.

            But I can’t recant anything I’ve written so that you can feel better about your relatives. What they personally were fighting for is completely irrelevant to what the Confederacy itself was fighting for. What mattered was what its leadership said at the time of the struggle, along with what the states said at the time, along with their own Constitution.

            Instead of focusing on the past and what your great-great-great-great grandfather fought for, how’s about we, I don’t know. . . maybe reclaim our heritage as the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln believed in free markets. He believed in economic growth. He believed in individual initiative. He believed in the Founders, that their principles are never old, never out of date. He believed in equality of opportunity. He believed in the American Dream, because he’d lived it. I can’t recommend highly enough Rich Lowry’s  Lincoln Unbound: How an Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved the American Dream---And How We Can Do It Again. Here are his conclusions:

             After all this time, Lincoln’s intellectual and moral case for the inherent worth of individual initiative, and for our free institutions and free economy as the foundations of it, is as important as ever. Lincoln’s enduring relevance is in his embodiment, expression, and realization of the American Dream. Nearly two centuries ago, a boy picked up an axe and imagined something better. Fired by ambition for himself and eventually for others, he made his way in the world, and then changed it. He saved the republic and did all he could to make it a bustling empire of commerce, the hotbed of millions of dreams, schemes, and aspirations.

            Across all the decades and despite all the momentous changes, we still live in that republic. In 1861, Lincoln told Congress, “The struggle of today is not altogether for today—it is for a vast future also.” That future was our windfall. We diminish and squander it at the risk of losing what it means to be American, and losing touch with the wellsprings of human accomplishment. It is up to us. In how we react to the new challenges to the American Dream, we shall nobly save, or meanly lose, what Lincoln and generations of patriots bequeathed to us.

Amen.