Was Late Congressman Lawrence "Larry" McDonald (D-GA) was the closest thing to a Jeffersonian Democrat?

Was he? Could it have been one of the Talmadges (Herman, Eugene), Alabama Governor George Wallace? But just what is Jeffersonian Democrat?


A Jeffersonian Democrat believes in the core ideas & principles of Thomas Jefferson:

The core political value of America is representative democracy; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.

The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most Anti-Federalists from 1787-88 joined the Jeffersonians.

The wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.

The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.

The federal government must not violate the rights of the states.
Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government.

The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. A strict view of how the constitution was written is kept. However, "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

In other words, run as a Jeffersonian Democrat. A Jeffersonian Democrat believes in small government; he believes that the government that governs least governs best. Like Thomas Jefferson, he or she believe that government power must be limited and that those entrusted with exercising that power must be held in check. As Jefferson put it, we must not put confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

The closest democrat to match those Jeffersonian principles was former Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald (D-GA), who served from 1975 to 1983 (he died in office) who was a ultra-conservative democrat who considered himself a traditional Democrat "cut from the cloth of Jefferson and Jackson—was known for his conservative views, even by Southern standards. He maintained a conservative voting record in Congress. He was known for his staunch opposition to communism and believed in long standing covert efforts by powerful U.S. groups to bring about a socialist world government.




McDonald was killed in 1983 when his flight has shot down by Soviet Fighters when his flight entered Soviet Airspace


During his political career, he also scored "perfect or near perfect ratings" on the congressional scorecards of the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Security Council. He took the communist threat seriously and considered it an international conspiracy. An admirer of Austrian economics and a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he was an advocate of tight monetary policy in the late 1970s to get the economy out of stagflation, and advocated returning to the gold standard. McDonald called the welfare state a "disaster" and favored phasing control of the Great Society programs over to the states to operate and run. He also favored cuts to foreign aid, saying "To me, foreign aid is an area that you not only can cut but you could take a chainsaw to in terms of reductions."


McDonald sponsored amendments to stop government aid to homosexuals. He also advocated the use of a non-approved drug laetrile to treat patients in advanced stages of cancer. McDonald also opposed the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, saying the FBI had evidence that King "was associated with and being manipulated by communists and secret communist agents. It was reported that McDonald had "about 200" guns stockpiled in his official district residence.


He was so conservative that in 1978, Seventh District Democratic Committee voted, 10–8–1, to pass a resolution to "censure" McDonald "for the dishonorable and despicable act of calling himself a Democrat. The main reason for the censure was McDonald's membership in the John Birch Society. Other reasons included: McDonald's alleged belief in the discredited idea that there were no implied powers in the U.S. Constitution, the claim that McDonald did not favor anti-monopoly laws, McDonald's lack of support for Jimmy Carter, and the claim that McDonald ran misleading advertisements. McDonald's reply stated the censure was "illegal" under party rules. Said McDonald: "It proves beyond any doubt to all my constituents in the Seventh District that I represent them and that I am not the puppet of a clique of liberal, disgruntled party bosses. Now you could call him a extremist politician by judging some of his positions on some of the issues mentioned above.

Here is one of his famous quotes: I personally believe that we don't need a lot more laws, I think we've got far too many laws on the books now, that's part of the problem. ... we don't need more government, more laws; we need a lot less. I'm up there in Washington, D.C. trying to dismantle a lot of this giant government. When you 'pass a law' with the current attitude in the Congress what do you get in a law today? You get either more spending, or more taxes, or more controls, which do you want? Do you want more spending? I think we've got too much. Do you want more taxes? I think we're taxed too heavily now. Do you want more controls over your life? Does anybody say 'Hey look, I really believe the federal government needs to control me. I want to be a slave. Please tell me how to run every facet of my life. I don't hear many people saying that. I think most people say I think it's time we get the government off our backs, and out of our pockets.

Many believed his presence may have made Flight 007 a target of the Soviets. Larry McDonald became the most dangerous enemy the Communists had. But this man was no doubt was the closest thing to a Jeffersonian Democrat. It wasn't all talk, he backed it up with action.

There is a group called "New Liberty Democrats": A conservative constitutional caucus started up by Michael Frisbee, who is running for congress in Ga-13 as a Constitutional Conservative. Poeple feel that our constitution is being ignored & walked on by those in D.C. (Liberals) & are calling for a return to those constitutional principles back to the democratic party. I atotally agree with that.

Check out the website. Itis www.NewLibertyDemocrats.com

Georgia Democrats Recent Struggles on the Countryside & How they can change that.

The economic problems faced by rural Georgia are very real, and growing worse by the day. Many of them can be attributed to policies of the Perdue Administration & the GOP. But the Georgia Democratic party totally failed to make that connection, and to make it apparent to rural Georgians.

Take small towns in rural Georgia for example. For decades, they've been dying slowly disappearing from the Georgia landscape as their young people move to the cities where they can find a good job (like I did at one time). They're not always in love with the lifestyle -- especially for their kids. But it beats starving.

That decline begins and ends with agribusiness. Perhaps the Democrats are too much in love with their corporate contributions to make the case they need to make. But if they ever again want to win a single rural county, they'll have to make the connection clear.

So jobs decline and wages decrease -- partly from competition, and partly because the only available jobs are minimum wage jobs. The impacts on the small towns here in Georgia that grew up to support those farming and ranching communities are severe:

People have fewer jobs and less to spend, Young people move away and raise their families in cities & The rural population dwindles over time.

Basically, there is a huge disconnect between the Democratic party and the people who make up rural Georgia. Democrats will have to identify policies that would appeal to both rural Georgia and to their socially progressive constituents. With a strong party platform that resonates with the more centrist/conservative democrats , the result would result in a strong connection with rural Georgia that will give them a better chance to win.

Democrats are in a position to make big strides on the Georgia Countryside, if they define the 2010 statewidw elections principally in terms of showing their commitment to family and a new direction for the state as a whole. Coupling an economic and education narrative with reassurances on moral values and spending paves a pathway to success for Democrats back in this former democratic stronghold. Rural voters’ biggest fear about a Democratically-controlled legislature is that Democrats will increase spending and raise taxes (SOMETHING THE GEORGIA GOP HAS ALREADY DONE & HAVE MANAGED TO GET AWAY WITH), and they are more concerned about this possibility than their urban and suburban counterparts.

Democrats can win the moral values debate both by expanding the values debate to encompass a broader narrative about family life, economic pressures, and family values. This means more than just mentioning church and faith: Democrats need to expand the debate to talk about the Democrats as the party on the side of the average family. Can they do it? Yes they can! But will they?

The perception these days is that while rural communities have been able to solidify power along with Republican Stronghold counties of North Georgia for the Republican Party , that support is waning. The massive cute in education, corruption and power abuse scandals, Tax Increases and the generally poor perception of the GOP led legislature have brought the Republican stock down a couple of notches in rural Georgia. But, oddly, some in the Democratic Party appears to have no interest in taking back Rural Georgia. Rural activists are struggling for resources. What the Democratic Party is doing is working to build the party up from the precinct level with computerized lists of names, finding whom to contact for the get-out-the-vote push on election day. Works great in cities. And, frankly it will work great in some parts of rural Georgia as well. About half of the people around here live in small towns, so precinct work will have some effect. SOME

In rural Georgia, however, you have problems with distance and time that you don't have in urban areas. While a state house district in Decatur might take in a couple square miles, my house district covers all of my county, as well as Taylor, NW Dooly Couhty, southern Peach county & North-Central Talbot County. It's hard to get to the doors to knock on them.

just collecting lists of Democrats will never win an election. Plowing the same field over and over, but planting no seed, will never grow a crop. ASK ANY FARMER, & HE OR SHE WILL TELL YOU. To win, you have to get out and engage both Independent voters and Republicans. You have to convince them to make that last jump, to leave the Republicans behind and vote for Democrats.

A wiser strategy, in my opinion might as well be to ignore the Democrats (because they are mostly going to vote for you) and engage the Independent and Republican voters with direct mail, targeted media advertising and door-to-door work where it's feasible. But what Democrats really need to do is to get to know people. They need to do everything from having a marching band to holding a fish fry to get to know people who aren't Democrats.

One problem with the Georgia Democratic Party, at least around here, is that it is centrally operated in a one-size-fits-all manner. There isn't even a second flavor for rural. What ought to be happening is that the state party folks should be talking to each county to find out what might work locally, and be ready to experiment, play around, try new things, and have some fun in finding ways to win. Many of our rural districts will take several election cycles to get to the point where Democrats are trusted. We are well on our way, but we need minimal resources. It's not really about money -- what rural Democrats really need is freedom. To be effective, our volunteers need the freedom to experiment with their rural communities and find out what will actually work. When the state party mandates the use of a centralized data input programs, it looks just like a frontal assault on the Maginot Line to me.

Growing up it was always said to me that Rich people are Republicans and poor people are Democrats. But the reality is Republicans attract two types of lower income voters. The first are fiscal conservatives who don’t want to pay too much in taxes and most definitely do not want to accept anything that resembles a “handout” from the government. The second type are the much maligned social conservatives.

All rural folks don't "cling" to their gun out of fear of everything (like the president Obama mentioned at one time at a SF Gathering). They wonder what the big deal is all of a sudden and why they have to suffer just because inner cities have gang problems. They don’t “cling to religion” out of fear of anything neither! The vast majority of rural Georgians are not particularly over-the-top religious, but Christianity is still part of their tradition, part of their family history, part of their understanding of their place and responsibility on this planet.

The rural vote is critical in mid-term elections because large Republican majorities among rural voters have helped overcome Democratic advantages in urban areas. With the rural advantage eroding for the GOP, both parties may look more carefully at the rural vote in the coming elections.

DEMOCRATS DON’T WIN UNLESS THEY MAKE RURAL GEORGIA COMPETITIVE, and Republicans don’t win without a large rural victory. So you’d think that would mean the candidates would have a spirited debate on the things that matter to rural Georgians, but we haven’t heard that as of yet.

The bottom line is if democrats running for office this year continue to plow the same field over & over again without any result (in other words, the same strategy of campaigning to traditionally democratic areas) they will not make any gains this year. They have got to stake out new ground in the state & get back into rural Georgia. If they do that, they'll be singing "happy days are hear again"! If not, well it'll be another long sorry night on Nov 3.

Rural Democrat Terry Coleman wants to be your next Labor Commissioner

Ahhhh!!!........ It's nice to see some Red Clay on the ballot this year as longtime Conservative Democrat (& I mean a real conservative democrat) Terry Coleman is back, this time gunning for his first statewide seat, the office of Labor Commissioner. Many thought he was going to run for State Agriculture Commissioner to succeed longtime Commissioner Tommy Irvin, who is retiring after 41 years, making him the longest tenured statewide official in the United States.

Coleman entry into the race for Labor Commissioner cam as a surprise to many here in the peach state. Coleman faces Darryl Hicks, a native of Taylor County, (now resides in Fayetteville) for the democratic nomination, who was going to run for Secretary of State again after failing in 2006 decided to get into the race after current commissioner Michael Thurmond entered the U.S. Senate race to take on Johnny Isakson.

Coleman was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives back in 1972, where he served until 2004, where he retired after 32 years representing the conservative middle georgia district. He served as Speaker of the House from 2002-2004 before the GOP took control of the house mainly because of democratic party switching & retirements.

And when everyone thought he was going to enjoy retirement, then came commissioner Tommy Irvin who appointed coleman to Deputy Agriculture Commissioner in 2007, in a move may saw as Irvin was preparing coleman to replace him as Agriculture Commissioner.

But that didn't pan out as Coleman was approached by Party Members to consider runninf for Labor Commissioner after Michael Thurmond announced his bid for the U.S. Senate. And at the end of qualifying, that's what Coleman did, he decided to run for Labor Commissioner & State Senator J.B. Powell (D-Blythe), a farmer & project manager qualified to run for Agriculture Commissioner.

So why Coleman decided to run for Labor? This what he says:

With unemployment at 10%, too many of our friends and neighbors are losing their homes, their health care, and so many other things they've worked their entire lives to secure.

We can't go on like this. We must put Georgia back to work. That's why I'm running for Labor Commissioner.

There it is right there. That's good enough for me!

Words from supporters of Coleman range from: He's a man of integrity & character, he's the right man for the job, Georgia need more gentlemen like him in influential positions of goverment. I'm sure it doesn't stop there.



he has a B.S. in Criminal Justice from Brenau University and a J.D. from Woodrow Wilson College of Law. He has been awarded honorary degrees from Mercer University and the John Marshall School of Law, as well as a lifetime member of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, the Georgia Chiefs of Police Association and the Georgia Firefighters’ Association & serves on the Board of Directors for the Bank of Dodge County and the Colony Bank Corporation.

A man who has worn many hats throughout his public & private life, Coleman maybe the person Georgia needs to get people back to work. (Not taking anything away from Michael Thurmond who has done a terrific job as Labor Commissioner), but since he is moving up the ladder for a shot at the senate, this is a time for someone with strong Georgia Values, strong leadership qualities, who wants to work for the people of Georgia & who is not interested in partisan games & show-boating.

GEORGIA NEEDS A WORKHORSE, NOT A PONY & RIDE SHOW!

Brian Westlake continues to rack up the endorsements

Demetria Williams, the incoming president of the Georgia School Counselors Association, offered her support and endorsement to Brian Westlake and his candidacy for state school superintendent.

"We need a state school superintendent who understands the issues facing Georgia's teachers and counselors. Brian Westlake gets it. He understands the need for counselors in our schools and the vital role we play in shaping our children's future. I wholeheartedly support his candidacy, and I look forward to working with Brian as our next state school superintendent," stated Williams.
"I am grateful for the endorsement of such a dedicated professional as Demetria Williams," Westlake said. "Throughout our state, school counselors are not receiving the support they need to serve our children. Many counselors are being taken away from their critical role with students and reassigned to administrative or testing-related duties. As your state school superintendent, I will work hard to ensure that these trained professionals get the respect and support they deserve."

The GOP Southern Strategy of 1968 & beyond: What was it & how did it reshaped the Political Landscape?

I had to do a little research on this one. Let's go back in time.

In 1948, a group of Democratic congressmen, led by Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, split from the Democrats in reaction to an anti-segregation speech given by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, founding the States Rights Democratic or Dixiecrat Party, which ran Thurmond as its presidential candidate. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. The party's principles were revived by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate.

Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees like Dwight Eisenhower; Goldwater's opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, Northern wing of the party. Rockefeller's defeat in the primary is seen as the beginning of the end for moderates and liberals in the Republican party.

Okay, now at this point, the debate begins. The facts are this: in the 1964 presidential race, Goldwater adopted an extremely conservative stance. In particular, he emphasized the issue of what he called "states' rights". As a conservative, Goldwater did not favor strong action by the federal government--for instance, though not a segregationist personally, he strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that, first, it was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and second, it was an interference with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose. This was a popular stand in the Southern states; whether or not this was specifically a tactic designed to appeal to (at that time) racist Southern white voters is a matter of debate. Regardless, the only states that Goldwater won in 1964 besides Arizona, were five Deep Southern states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.


The Southern Strategy was deployed even more effectively by Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential election. Nixon, with the aid of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican party in 1964, ran on a campaign of states' rights and "law and order." As a result every state that had been in the Confederacy, except Texas, voted for either Nixon or Southern Democrat George Wallace, despite a strong tradition of supporting Democrats. Meanwhile, Nixon parlayed a wide perception as a moderate into wins in other states, taking a solid majority in the electoral college. That is why the election of 1968 is sometimes cited as a realigning election.


In turn, the Republican Party became more and more overtly anti-intellectual, anti-minority, anti-immigrant, anti-labor, and anti-poor much more generally, while remaining the party of big business.

The Voting Rights Act is what made it possible for Republicans to compete in the South. Once blacks could no longer be kept from voting in primaries there was no longer and reason for any whites to remain Democrats. Many found the Republican Party more attractive. Of course, the national party reached out to them, but the idea that they used racial code words like “law and order” is nonsense. Crime was a legitimate problem. Moreover, Nixon did more to desegregate the schools than any other president. Republicans certainly tried to make political inroads in the South for a long time prior to the southern strategy. Voters there tended to be sympathetic to Republicans on national defense, taxes, government spending and other issues.

Nixon’s pledge to preserve “law and order” looks very different in the context of urban race riots. In the short-years preceding the 1968 election, scenes from the riots in Detroit, Chicago and Washington D.C. (among others) emanated from the nation’s television screens. White Americans were more than familiar with the image of the black rioter, and when Nixon’s campaign used the “law and order” rhetoric to attack liberals, they knew exactly what he meant. Moreover, once president, Nixon continued to make inroads to the legions southern whites that supported him in the election (as well as the 1972 one). He nominated three southern conservatives to the Supreme Court — Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell (known for his pro-segregationist views), and Herschel H. Friday — and opposed extension of the Voting Rights Act in its original form.



As civil rights grew more accepted throughout the nation, basing a general election strategy on appeals to "states' rights" as a play against civil rights laws grew less effective; there was a greater danger of a national backlash. Nevertheless, in 1980, when Ronald Reagan initiated his general election campaign after accepting the Republican Party nomination, he did so with a speech in which he stated his support of states' rights. He did so at a county fair in Neshoba County, Mississippi, which was also known as the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. Reagan went on to make a speech praising Jefferson Davis, the strongly pro-slavery president of the Confederacy and states' rights advocate, at Stone Mountain, Georgia, site of the founding of the modern Klan. A prominent Klan leader endorsed Reagan, but he disavowed the endorsement and moved to neutralize any negative publicity by securing the support of noted Southern civil rights activists Hosea Williams and Ralph David Abernathy, which I didn't know he secured.



The Turning Point was in 1968
Racial liberalism (Civil Rights Act)
Cultural liberalism (especially limits on school prayer and restrictions on gun ownership)
Economic liberalism: (Keynes, social welfare)
Each component of liberal progress repelled Southern voters

The Republican response: A Southern Strategy by 1980
Low taxes
Small government
No social welfare (except social security)
Defense
Capital punishment
Each a persistent element of successful Republican campaigns
Replaced direct racial appeal (Basically the same things that are still being used in today's politifal climate)

It also included these other facets:

So-called fiscal conservatism, in the form of support for balanced budgets whenever it was a question of social spending, but not for the military or for tax cuts for the rich.

Immigrant-bashing

Ideological tests for judges

Demonizing and scapegoating of opponents

Opposition to Big Government, meaning social programs for the poor, for minorities, and for women, and Federal enforcement of Civil Rights laws on the states.

States' Rights, meaning the right to oppress citizens and other residents of a state without interference from the Federal government



In southern politics, race and ethnicity overshadow economic class, and both Nixon and Reagan knew this better than most politicians as the once "solid" South moved from the Democratic column to the Republican column. The Nixon "Southern Strategy" was also effectively used by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.


On his deathbed, Lee Atwater, the famed republican strategist had a conversion and expressed remorse for the ugly tactics he used to win. He also became more candid about the role of racism in his campaigns. As he remarked in an interview:


Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.


Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps


Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”


There were alot of unflattering things that came with the GOP Southern Strategy. Although that strategy has gone by the wayside somewhat, there are still elements that are still being used by the GOP. You can say some of these tactics are being used right now by the opposition like immigrant bashing, demonizing & scapegoating opponents, opposition to Big Government (Like the Healthcare Reform Bill that was passed recently). I am one one of those who were to opposed to the bill. So in a way, you can say some of these things are still being employed by the GOP.

Christian Conservative Democrats Pro-Abortion?: No Way!

Many people who consider themselves Pro-Life automatically assume that their natural political alignment is with the Republicans. Many Republicans candidates apply the Pro-Life tag to themselves, and hope voters don't look too close. Conservative Pro-Lifers also automatically assume that Democrats are the pro-abortion party. But as recent history tells us, it's all part of The Big Lie.

Christian Democrats ARE NOT PRO-ABORTION!


First of all, it would be rare indeed to find anyone who is actually pro-abortion. Virtually everyone in American society has been sensitized to the moral trauma that is abortion. As a birth control solution, it cannot be morally supported.

But Americans, by and large, also oppose allowing the government the power to decide such personal issues as how many children they should have. It is safe to say that Roe v. Wade decided absolutely nothing, and instead provoked a outcry among many Christians that continues to this day. This is the quandary that many Christian Democrats find themselves in. Christian Democrats want to see a solution to the abortion issue.

The Republican Party encourages Pro-Life voters to blame the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on Democrats. The Republican Party never points out that five of the seven justices in the majority in Roe v. Wade were Republicans; of the two justices who dissented, one was a Republican, one a Democrat.

Why do Pro-Life voters continue to vote for the Republicans? Because Democrats have been put on the defensive. A person who supports a Democrat with a sign, a bumper sticker, or a letter to the editor will be vilified by Republican attack dogs.


One could add a welfare system that doesn't force a woman to choose between having a baby and keeping a job. Republican politicians are fond of talking about the "tough love" represented by their cuts to the welfare system. They forget that "tough love" often results in an abortion.

What Does it mean to be pro-life? No exceptions for the life and health of the mother? Does it include an exception for rape or incest? How about use of birth control that may work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg—a zygote, not a fetus? How about non-surgical abortions?

Christian Conservative Democrats support all the things that will result in reducing the number of abortions by reducing the demand for abortions: family planning, teen pregnancy prevention and adoption law reform. Some just support an all out ban on abortion procedures

Democratic Leadership Council 2001 Article: Why We Need To Build Biracial Coalitions

One of the unmistakable big trends in American politics is the emergence of a multi-ethnic society. White European-Americans will soon cease to represent a commanding majority of the population. Meanwhile, the numerical prominence of African-Americans among minority citizens is being eclipsed by a rapid increase in the Hispanic population, with Asian-Americans on the rise as well. But for the moment, there are still key parts of the country where politics -- especially Democratic Party politics -- remain a matter of black and white. This is true for most of the urban centers in the industrial heartland of the country, from Philadelphia to Kansas City, and for one entire region: the Deep South. In the wake of Al Gore's loss of every single Southern state in 2000 (with the arguable exception of the distinctly un-Southern state of Florida), it's important to look closely at the present and future condition of biracial Democratic politics in Dixie.

In a Southern crescent that sweeps from Virginia through Louisiana, African-Americans currently represent between one-sixth and nearly one-third of the electorate, depending on the state. More important to Democrats, the black vote in these states ranges from one-third to well over half of the Democratic vote in competitive races. This means that in some congressional districts, blacks effectively control the Democratic primary.

African-Americans have been remarkably faithful Democratic voters, in the Deep South and elsewhere, since the civil rights era. Even unsuccessful Democratic candidates in Southern statewide races have been able to count on black percentages near or over 90 percent. The key to Democratic victories has been to combine the black vote with a minority of the white vote necessary to get to 50 percent in each state. It hasn't been easy.

There have been three waves of Republican ascendancy in the Deep South since the Civil Rights Act of 1964: in the late 1960s, in the early 1980s, and in 1994. In every case, Republicans aimed at (and on occasion, temporarily succeeded in) generating a racial polarization of the parties in which very large majorities of white voters left the Democratic Party. Democrats have managed to recreate a successful biracial coalition in each era: in the 1970s by rebuilding rural white support once the shock of desegregation had passed; in the 1980s by exploiting GOP divisions and mistakes; and most recently, in 1998, by championing educational opportunity in a way that united African-Americans with school-focused white suburbanites.

But throughout these back-and-forth partisan struggles, the almost exclusive political focus on white swing voters naturally began to stimulate resentment among African-American voters and leaders, who were grossly under-represented in the ranks of Democratic elected officials, especially in Congress and among statewide offices.

This problem manifested itself most clearly in the decennial redistricting process, where the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided specific safeguards for minority representation in Southern states. During the 1990s redistricting process, the first Bush Administration's Justice Department worked aggressively with civil rights groups to create as many black-majority congressional and state legislative districts as possible. The GOP's political motive, of course, was to consolidate reliably Democratic black voters in their "own" districts, making the remaining districts "whiter" and more likely to go Republican.

Exhibit A in the claim that "racial gerrymandering" was designed to disrupt the South's Democratic biracial coalition was Georgia, whose U.S. House delegation changed from 9-1 Democratic (eight whites, one black) in 1991 to 8-3 Republican (all three Democrats black) four years later. Two Supreme Court decisions (Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson) in the 1990s placed constitutional limitations on redistricting schemes aimed at controlling the racial composition of legislative delegations, but this year's Hunt v. Cromartie ruling seems to reopen the door to racial gerrymandering so long as legislatures disguise it as old-fashioned political gerrymandering (since African-Americans vote so heavily Democratic, it's easy to use political criteria to achieve specific racial percentages in a district). But there are early, encouraging signs that both black and white Southern Democrats have learned from the experience of the 1990s and are working together to achieve better black representation while furthering the party's interests as a whole.

In the long run, it's obvious that the alternative to racial gerrymandering for Democrats is to show that white Democrats and independents will vote for black Democratic candidates under the right circumstances. During the 1990s, a number of Southern black members of Congress -- often younger and more moderate than their predecessors -- began building significant and durable levels of white support. These include Sheila Jackson-Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas; Harold Ford of Tennessee; Sanford Bishop of Georgia; and Corrine Brown and Carrie Meek of Florida.

But the most promising sign of a new, two-way biracial coalition occurred in Georgia in 1998, where two centrist, New Democrat African-Americans, Michael Thurmond (elected as labor commissioner) and Thurbert Baker (elected as attorney general) won statewide office, carrying as high a percentage of the white vote as their white ticketmates, Gov. Roy Barnes and Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor. If this precedent is repeated elsewhere, it's not too much to expect that a black governor or U.S. senator can be elected in the South quite soon -- so long as the candidate is a centrist who can achieve biracial support.

The Democratic resurgence in the Deep South continued at the state level in 2000, with Mike Easley's election as governor of North Carolina and Zell Miller's easy U.S. Senate win in Georgia. But at the presidential level, Al Gore lost everywhere, for the simple reason that he failed to win anything like the percentage of the white vote recently won by successful Southern Democrats. The numbers are stunning. In 1998, Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman won 48 percent of the white vote; Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes won 37 percent; and South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges won 40 percent. Gore won 26 percent of the white vote in each of these states. In North Carolina in 1998, U.S. Sen. John Edwards won 41 percent of the white vote; Gore won 31 percent. Adding these white votes to the reliably 9-to-1 Democratic margins among blacks put all these candidates into office.

Democratic strategists should take a long look at why Siegelman, Barnes, Hodges, and Edwards were able to put together a successful biracial coalition and Al Gore couldn't. The simple answer is: In the South, it's no longer about race, it's about message.

Moreover, this formula has implications for Democrats in other parts of the country, such as California and Florida, where multi-ethnic rather than biracial coalitions are required. A diverse, centrist Democratic Party with an inclusive message of balanced growth, education, equal opportunity, and personal responsibility will be more successful and unified than a party patched together in tense negotiations between ethnic-group leaders with different agendas. A common message can build unity from diversity.

Ed Kilgore is policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council.