Something peculiar is happening in Tennessee.
Prominent Republican Senator Bill Frist, the leader of the largest party in the U.S. Senate, is standing down at the forthcoming mid-term elections on 7th November, and the choice for voters in this southern state is between grey-haired, white, self-styled “real Tennesseean” Bob Corker, and baby-faced black Democrat, Harold Ford jnr.
If you follow U.S. politics at all, you’ll know the result of this race already. The south is Republican territory. Every southern Senator since the end of the American Civil War in 1865 has been white, and they’ve usually been conservative Republicans.
You might be surprised then, to watch these two thirty second television adverts running in the state. First, the underdog’s attack ad – Hard Ford Jnr’s attack on Republican candidate, and former mayor of Chatanooga, Bob Corker:
And second, the astonishing return attack from the Republican national party:
The Republican ad, with it’s message: “Harold Ford. He’s just not right” has been accused of having racist overtones, and the backlash was such that Corker was forced to publicly call on his own national party, who ran the ad, to pull it. After six days of bitter public rowing between Democrats and Republicans, they finally removed it from the Tennesean airwaves.
Why then is the race getting so nasty? Because it’s getting close – in fact, it is one of the most competitive in the country, and could help decide who takes control of the Senate on November 7 when Democrats hope to win the six seats they need to regain control of the Senate and the 15 they need to control the lower House of Representatives.
Victory in the House of Representatives would hand the Democrats control of many influential committees, allowing them not only to launch a series of investigations into the Iraq war, but also the ongoing chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee would give the Democrats real say over any potential future action in the middle east and North Korea.
Victory in the House would also enable the Democrats to install the most likely Democratic candidate for Speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, in to the Speaker’s chair. George W Bush’s final State of the Union addresses would be delivered standing beneath a female Democratic speaker – a powerful televisual image.
Victory in the House and Senate would allow the Democrats to cripple George Bush’s Presidency, handing the Democrats complete control of the legislative agenda (barring the President’s veto). The Senate is required to confirm major government appointments such as senior military posts, and cabinet officials.
But any victory in the mid-terms would also present real difficulties for the Democrats. Though they could potentially make George W. Bush a lame duck President, they would be stuck with no prospect of taking over the office of the President itself, where the real power lies, for another two years. To an extent, their hands would be tied. The Democrats would have to exercise responsible bi-partisan government in a difficult climate, and enter the next Presidential race with a two-year track record in Government behind them.
If Harold Ford Jnr does indeed become the first black senator from the South for 150 years, he and his Democrat colleagues may find themselves in for quite a political roller-coaster ride over the next two years, as the world watches a battle for power at the heart of the government of our only remaining super power.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Opinion: Land Value Tax - an old idea with lots of modern supporters
Mystery of fake leaflets in North Richmond
Which of the five Lib Dem reshuffle options will Nick Clegg pick?
In praise of Councillor Neil Hughes - 56 Up
Opinion: A letter to a constituent regarding equal marriage
John Leech MP writes… It is not just the Leader’s job to sell the Pupil Premium
Opinion: A letter to a constituent regarding equal marriage
Opinion: A message from Paddy over a decade later
Opinion: Clutching at straws
Colonial Drive Planning Meeting - the outcome
IDAHO - International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia
Market Harborough gets a Star Wars makeover
Urlay Nook Plans
I have my cup final ticket...
BUPA Great Manchester Run 2012
Willie Rennie's first year as Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader
The Kinks' Music: Percy
Elliot Bidgood
alistair
Richard Dean
Nicola Prigg
Henry Law
8 Comments
Many more Democrats have been elected in the South than Republicans. The South was solidly Democrat from the Civil War until Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy in the late sixties.
I doff my historical cap to you, sir – though I am assured the statement on black southern senators is correct.
Tennessee isn’t in the ‘deep south’, the term generally refers to the old confederate states.
Rgds, Paul
I know! The piece doesn’t mention the deep south
Errr… apart from in the headline. Dipstick. Will fix.
Incidentally, Tennessee did join the Confederate States, but I still wouldn’t say it’s a deep south state.
The history is a little more complex.
After the US Civil War, the former Confederate States were subject to a period of Reconstruction before being allowed representation in Congress. Tennessee (much of which had come under Union occupation early in the Civil War), was the first southern state re-admitted to representation in 1866.
One of the major objections of most white southerners to Reconstruction was that the black population was given political rights.
Unsurprisingly, given that the Republicans had freed the slaves, most of the southern black voters supported the Republican Party and most of the white voters were Democrats.
Two black US Senators were elected in Mississippi (which at the time had a black majority in its electorate). The firsyt of them, Hiram Revels ironically held the same seat the Confederate President Jefferson Davis occupied before secession. He served 1870-1871. The other Senator, Blanche K. Bruce served a full term 1875-1881.
During the 1870s the northern Republicans abandoned Reconstruction. In exchange for the southern Democratic connivance in the Repulican victory in the disputed Presidential election of 1876, federal troops withdrew from the south.
During the rest of the nineteenth century whatever combination of force, fraud and dubious legal tricks was necessary, was used to disenfranchise black southerners. By about 1880 the deep south and by 1900 the upper south were solidly Democratic in elections (apart from an enclave of white Republicans in the mountains of Tennessee).
By the 1950′s the Republicans won the odd Congressional seat in statres like Florida and Texas, but did not really make a breakthrough until the local landslide for Barry Goldwater in 1964 (while he was badly beaten in the north he did better in the deep south than any Republican since 1876).
After the Democratic Party enacted civil rights legislation in the 1960s the solid south began to break up. In essence the two parties switched position in the polical system of the south, although as black voters were now permitted the south was not as solid for the Republicans as it once was for the Democrats.
I’ve been following the Ford race (and most of the rest of US elections) as I always do.
Ford is one of the least liberal of the Democrat candidates. There is a great deal about this race on american forums – one I was reading tonight is at http://www.thechiefsource.com/2006/10/republicans-go-republican.html
Gary, two parties switched sides? Astonishing. It couldn’t happen here…
Anyway. I’m not so sure about the republican ad. If you interpret it charitably, it is not about race at all. It is probably almost entirely untrue of course, but that is another matter.
However, I agree that it would appeal to racists. Is there a moral duty not just not to be racist but to be clear that you aren’t racist? I’m not sure.
In rational discourse, I think it is generally right to interpret your opponents’ statements charitably, and to attack their strongest arguments rather than their weakest. In political point scoring, the opposite is most effective. I guess republican TV ads are so far removed from rational discourse that the charitability prinicple is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Still, although it will appeal to racist voters, and that is contemptible, it is not clear whether the ad reflects racist attitudes of the republican campaign.