What do you think?
Rate this book
Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South
A Washington Examiner columnist argues that Democrats can successfully transform American politics in spite of socially conservative and electorally hostile factions throughout the South, in an political analysis that challenges Democrats to retake power by building a winning coalition outside of southern regions. 40,000 first printing.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
76 people want to read
About the author
Thomas F. Schaller
11 books21 followersTHOMAS F. SCHALLER is professor of political science at UMBC. He is a former national political columnist for the Baltimore Sun, and is the author of five books, including White Rural Rage and Whistling Past Dixie.
Tom Schaller is the penname of Thomas F. Schaller.
Tom Schaller is the penname of Thomas F. Schaller.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 25, 2009
An interesting book, if dated now (it was written before the 2006 elections, when the Democrats were still in huge trouble). It has some very solid political data and anecdotes that are probably of interest.
However, I still disagree with some of Schaller's conclusions both from a strict Machivellian perspective, and more importantly from an idealistic perspective as well. Schaller is a firm believer that politics is too serious to not take winning seriously, and I suppose some people like this are needed. After all, your party platform doesn't matter until you successfully take power. Nevertheless, I believe that this is the wrong way to approach the issue.
For instance, Schaller recounts with pride how Maryland gerrymandered out two moderate Republican congressmen after the 2002 census. Meanwhile places like Ohio, Texas, and Michigan gerrymandered out Democratic congressmen. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these events are particularly good for democracy, though I certainly understand that "unilateral disarmament" just gives weapons to the Republicans. Meh. Schaller also thinks that moderate Republicans should be targeted first and tied to extremists in their own party - that is, the destruction of the Northeastern moderate Republicans that actually happened from 2006-08. He actually is in favot of leaving around some extremist nuts in the South for the Republicans, to make them look bad. Meh. I'd rather have two sane parties, than attempt to actively foment the polarization that was happening anyway in the past decade.
Regardless of the idealistic note, the idea that the Dems should basically concede the South and then demonize it to the rest of the country seems silly. Heck, Schaller to a degree acknowledges this himself - he still thinks charismatic Democratic politicians should have a go at it in the South - but events like Jim Webb's Senate win for VA Senate in 2006 and Kay Hagan's win in North Carolina in 08 show that abandoning the South is silly. Which is not to deny that the Mountain West seems far more conducive to the Democratic message... it's just that the Dems can and should run everywhere. There's no need to demonize the South, and such a tactic would be against Obama's "no red state or blue state" rhetoric. It would also needlessly throw away winnable seats. Schaller compares this to Republican demonizing of coastal liberals, but even if this actually worked for the Republicans (very much in dispute), it's not a good idea regardless for idealism's sake anyway. Sigh. To put things another way, the Republican demonizing of coastal elites is largely why they managed to throw away the Northeast - I'd call that a Republican screw-up rather than a Democratic triumph.
I will say that Schaller's points about racially-conscious districts actually harming the Democrats nowadays is correct, and something I basically agree with. It basically concentrates Democratic power way too tightly, and is basically an automatic pro-Republican gerrymander in many areas.
So... interesting, even if I disagree. Mild recommendation, though it is largely out of date now.
However, I still disagree with some of Schaller's conclusions both from a strict Machivellian perspective, and more importantly from an idealistic perspective as well. Schaller is a firm believer that politics is too serious to not take winning seriously, and I suppose some people like this are needed. After all, your party platform doesn't matter until you successfully take power. Nevertheless, I believe that this is the wrong way to approach the issue.
For instance, Schaller recounts with pride how Maryland gerrymandered out two moderate Republican congressmen after the 2002 census. Meanwhile places like Ohio, Texas, and Michigan gerrymandered out Democratic congressmen. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these events are particularly good for democracy, though I certainly understand that "unilateral disarmament" just gives weapons to the Republicans. Meh. Schaller also thinks that moderate Republicans should be targeted first and tied to extremists in their own party - that is, the destruction of the Northeastern moderate Republicans that actually happened from 2006-08. He actually is in favot of leaving around some extremist nuts in the South for the Republicans, to make them look bad. Meh. I'd rather have two sane parties, than attempt to actively foment the polarization that was happening anyway in the past decade.
Regardless of the idealistic note, the idea that the Dems should basically concede the South and then demonize it to the rest of the country seems silly. Heck, Schaller to a degree acknowledges this himself - he still thinks charismatic Democratic politicians should have a go at it in the South - but events like Jim Webb's Senate win for VA Senate in 2006 and Kay Hagan's win in North Carolina in 08 show that abandoning the South is silly. Which is not to deny that the Mountain West seems far more conducive to the Democratic message... it's just that the Dems can and should run everywhere. There's no need to demonize the South, and such a tactic would be against Obama's "no red state or blue state" rhetoric. It would also needlessly throw away winnable seats. Schaller compares this to Republican demonizing of coastal liberals, but even if this actually worked for the Republicans (very much in dispute), it's not a good idea regardless for idealism's sake anyway. Sigh. To put things another way, the Republican demonizing of coastal elites is largely why they managed to throw away the Northeast - I'd call that a Republican screw-up rather than a Democratic triumph.
I will say that Schaller's points about racially-conscious districts actually harming the Democrats nowadays is correct, and something I basically agree with. It basically concentrates Democratic power way too tightly, and is basically an automatic pro-Republican gerrymander in many areas.
So... interesting, even if I disagree. Mild recommendation, though it is largely out of date now.
October 9, 2019
A lot seems quaint by now, but several points were surprisingly prescient from the perspective of our current Trumpian context. Unfortunately, suggestions regarding gun "rights" in the last chapter appear especially misguided in 2019.
May 10, 2007
A useful tactical guide, October 29, 2006
Reviewer: David Stinson from Amazon
An overall good book. The author I think has a useful strategy, and lots of numbers to back it up. In fact, my main criticism of the book would be that Scaller is better with numbers than complex philosophical arguments. He can tell you a lot of useful information on the political situation in many places around the country. He analyzes the politics in the south very well. The historical analysis from decades ago is less interesting, though. There is a curious ommission with Katrina, and all the corruption that exposed. Maybe that was because he was trying to protect the line that it was a problem with the feds, not the local southern politicians - but if his thesis is that we're giving up on the south, that would give us free reign to criticize the southern politicians as well.
Later in the book, as he started talking about a non-southern political strategy, he could have said more about policy. There was one chapter on demography that read like a census report. Only one chapter was specifically devoted to policy, and I think there is more to say about that while still utilizing his tactical approach. In that chapter, I also picked up on some contradictions, like the Publisher's Weekly people. The chapter opens with a couple of on-the-money quotes about the Democrats being 'against' stuff, rather then 'for' stuff. Yet later in the chapter, he argues that NAFTA and CAFTA were perfect examples of where we should "plant a flag" in opposition, and show resolve. He never gives any positive examples of "flag planting."
This is the first book I've read in the 'genre' of partisan tactics, so perhaps many of these criticisms would apply to other books as well. But I think a good book on policy should address some of the political issues, and visa-versa. The author does have an insightful argument that the Democratic leadership should consider, and I still think it's a worthwhile read just for that.
Reviewer: David Stinson from Amazon
An overall good book. The author I think has a useful strategy, and lots of numbers to back it up. In fact, my main criticism of the book would be that Scaller is better with numbers than complex philosophical arguments. He can tell you a lot of useful information on the political situation in many places around the country. He analyzes the politics in the south very well. The historical analysis from decades ago is less interesting, though. There is a curious ommission with Katrina, and all the corruption that exposed. Maybe that was because he was trying to protect the line that it was a problem with the feds, not the local southern politicians - but if his thesis is that we're giving up on the south, that would give us free reign to criticize the southern politicians as well.
Later in the book, as he started talking about a non-southern political strategy, he could have said more about policy. There was one chapter on demography that read like a census report. Only one chapter was specifically devoted to policy, and I think there is more to say about that while still utilizing his tactical approach. In that chapter, I also picked up on some contradictions, like the Publisher's Weekly people. The chapter opens with a couple of on-the-money quotes about the Democrats being 'against' stuff, rather then 'for' stuff. Yet later in the chapter, he argues that NAFTA and CAFTA were perfect examples of where we should "plant a flag" in opposition, and show resolve. He never gives any positive examples of "flag planting."
This is the first book I've read in the 'genre' of partisan tactics, so perhaps many of these criticisms would apply to other books as well. But I think a good book on policy should address some of the political issues, and visa-versa. The author does have an insightful argument that the Democratic leadership should consider, and I still think it's a worthwhile read just for that.
February 12, 2008
Detailed book explaining how the Democrats can with the 2008 Presidential elections without having to pander to the South. The author Thomas F. Schaller says Democrats can take back the Whitehouse by vying for purples states such as Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, and Ohio. The basic premise is the Democrats have to gain more control of liberal states and build structures in purple or swing states. The way to create this is similar to a farm league in baseball. Develop a league of young talent in purple state Houses and Senates and then build them up to higher positions like Governor and House Members. By building a solid foundation in these swing states the Democrats are more likely to have a winning structure, creating a formidable majority in the House and Senate leading to a Democratic President. I wish I had read the book before the 2006 because it predicts allot of the results that occurred in the previous election. The book is still relevant especially with the 20008 Presidential Election heating up.
October 29, 2014
This is a good book on the history of how the Democratic party lost the South and what they can do to reverse their political fortunes. The author has suggestions for the Democratic party, backed up by polls and other analyses, on how to revive their political fortunes by essentially ignoring the South (mainly Dixie) and focusing on reviving the party in the rest of the country.
This book came out 2 years before Obama's election and it looks as though the Obama campaign and Democrats took several tips from this book. E.g. ignore Dixie and focus on the rest of the country, on cultural issues like abortion take positions that go against the core beliefs of Southerners, focus on a few of the Southern states that are ready to flip like Virginia, focus on mobilization of core Democratic voter groups like youth etc. Another suggestion by the author is a new Democratic platform of “strong defense, smart offense, a culture of investment and defense of inalienable rights”. That is pretty much what Obama ran on in both this campaigns.
This book came out 2 years before Obama's election and it looks as though the Obama campaign and Democrats took several tips from this book. E.g. ignore Dixie and focus on the rest of the country, on cultural issues like abortion take positions that go against the core beliefs of Southerners, focus on a few of the Southern states that are ready to flip like Virginia, focus on mobilization of core Democratic voter groups like youth etc. Another suggestion by the author is a new Democratic platform of “strong defense, smart offense, a culture of investment and defense of inalienable rights”. That is pretty much what Obama ran on in both this campaigns.
August 26, 2007
I think he's wrong.
December 4, 2007
oh man, just couldn't get through this...lots of stats, little to no narration. just. couldn't. do it.
June 22, 2011
author is a professor at UMBC
October 16, 2012
Schaller just kept making the same and similar points repeatedly. He was very repetitive. Really!
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews