The Debatable Land

The American-Americans

Matt Yglesias posted an interesting map the other day:

It's a map drawn from US Census bureau data on ethnicity and ancestry. According to the census, however, some 7% of Americans look puzzled when you quiz 'em about their ancestry and write American rather than "Irish" or "Polish" or Korean" or "Cuban". This map shows where those American-Americans live, leading Matt to argue, vis a vis Jim Webb's prospects for the Vice-Presidency, that "Webb's favorite ethnic group, in short, seems to be the ethnic group with the least ethnic consciousness." (I concur with Matt, incidentally, in recommending Eve Fairbanks' fine Webb profile in this week's New Republic)

Well, yes, and that's one of the reasons Webb felt compelled to write his history of the Scots-Irish in America, Born Fighting. It's precisely because he felt that his ain folk were, to borrow from Ian Fleming, "a tough, forgotten race" that Webb leapt into the fray.

Still, if you were to plot Scottish (and Ulster) immigration to the US on a map, you'd end up with something similar to the "American" map above. And that goes some way towards explaining why there's no significant Scottish political constituency in the United States. Equally, though some Scots and Ulster immigrants (the latter mainly Scots who'd been in Ulstr for a generation or two) left for the New World involuntarily, many more did not. They were leaving for a reason and had little cause to look back with sentiment.

And of course, they left a long time ago (emigrants from post-WW1 Scotland, tended to head to Canda or New Zealand) and, being for the most part practical protestants, they did not so much assimilate into America as build it in the first place. No wonder, then, that despite the St Andrews' and Caledonian Societies scattered across America there's never been much of a Scots Lobby in American politics. The SNP, of course, would love it if there were such a lobby. But there are no collection tins being passed around Appalachian churches or in the bars of Columbia or Knoxville.

Equally, it's precisely because the descendents of these immigrants from lowland Scotland, Ulster (and the counties of northern England) consider themselves unhyphenated Americans that they have harboured, I'd suggest, suspicions of those more recent arrivals who consider themselves "ethnics" or otherwise hyphenated-Americans.

Anyway, one other thought with regard to immigration: does anyone know of a study comparing assimilation rates between immigrants who left their home countries willingly and those who, for whatever reason, were compelled to leave? My suspicion - and it is only that - would be that Mexicans arriving in the United States seeking economic advancement (and planning to stay permanently) are likely to become unhyphenated-Americans more quickly than, say, those forced out of their home countries for other reasons (eg, the Cuban community in Florida). But that's just a guess...

Webb-mania revisited

Kathy G, guest-blogging for Matt Yglesias, lays out a lengthy case for why Barack Obama should not pick Jim Webb as his Vice-President here. I suspect that the points she makes will prove persuasive and that Obama won't choose Webb, not least because of concerns over his attitude towards women and gender issues generally. It's true that Webb's most controversial statements on women in the military were made more than a generation ago, but thats not the point. As Kathy says, women are a vital Democratic constituency and, with so many women disappointed by Clinton's favour, there's no need to rub salt in their wounds by picking a Veep such as Webb.

Kathy G then writes:

In addition, I just don't buy many of the pro-Webb arguments. One argument I hear is that Webb would be great because Obama needs "credibility" on foreign policy. But as Mori Dinauer has pointed out, this may "just underscore the notion that Obama is somehow weak on foreign policy."

Then there's the notion that selecting Webb will buy Obama some white working class cred. I have multiple problems with this one. First of all, the notion, which some lefty males of my acquaintance really seem to buy into, that Webb is some pure tribune of salt-of-the-earth working class authenticity is highly questionable. Webb's father was a career Air Force officer; his family was not wealthy but certainly was comfortably middle class.

Secondly, the idea that putting a white Southern military dude on the ticket will somehow win Obama white working class votes he wouldn't get otherwise is highly problematic. It reminds me of the way I and my fellow liberals thought that nominating John Kerry might win over the working class, 'cause they love military heroes, right?

There's something in this, for sure. There are problems too. In an election against John McCain, Obama is likely to be seen as weak or inexperienced in foreign policy terms (I make no judgement as to whether this is accurate or not, I merely note the perception), consequently Obama has a deficit to make up in this area. Everyone knows that he's less experienced than McCain in foreign policy terms (though of course McCain has never run anything either, nor had to make judgements that actually have significant consequences), but I think picking a Veep with a military or national security background is likely to win more praise from the media than highlight any "weakness". After all, remember that Dick Cheney's long-experience in Washington was considered a great advantage for George W Bush who had never run anything in the capital and whose executive experience amounted to two terms in the weakest gubernatorial office in the country. Cheney's presence on the ticket higlighted Bush's inexperience in one respect, but it also offered reassurance. (How did that work out? Well, not so good, but that's not the point...)

A Bluegrass Lament for Obama?

Matt Zeitlin says the idea that Obama "needs" to win Appalachia is "just wrong". And, of course, he has a point when he writes that "It’s just true that Obama doesn’t need the states that the media keeps on telling the Democrats they need to focus on. If Obama can win the Kerry states and flip Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, he has the election."

Nonetheless, that's a hefty "if". Theoretically, Ohio should be a can't lose proposition for Democrats this year. Pennsylvania may be too. But...

The issue, however, is not one of "must win states" but of how wide a front Obama is going to fight on. The logic of Howard Dean's sensible "50 state" strategy is that conceding any region of the country makes your candidate's task very much more difficult: you reduce your margin of error or mishap. in such circumstances you then need to win all or almost all of the toss-up states. (The GOP's crippling weakness in the north-east is, of course, the flipside of this problem and one that makes their chances of retaining the Presidency, let alone regaining either the House or Senate that much more difficult. If I were a GOP strategist this would keep me awake...)

So the idea that Obama shouldn't worry about West Virginia, Kentucky or Tennessee because he can make up any losses there with wins in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada is wrong. It's not an either/or situation. A compelling candidate should be able to fight in the south-west and along the Appalachian trail. Long-term trends support targetting the Mountain West, but that doesn't mean Obama can cede the white working class now. (Though in fact, I'd also suggest that in a general election facing McCain, Hillary would be just as vulnerable as Obama is amongst white working-class men.)

The argument for picking Webb is, in this sense, an argument in favour of insurance. It might go some way towards minimising the risk of disaster for Obama amongst the kind of working-class Democrats who might be particularly susceptible to John McCain's biography, political style and appeal to patriotic sentiment. Or, to put it this way, when Republicans question - as, alas, they will - Obama's patriotism, it's hard to think of a better candidate than Webb to tell the media that this is the most miserable kind of arrant nonsense. Factor in Webb's new, updated GI Bill - from which the fighting families of Appalachia and the South will benefit disproportionately - and you have a Vice-Presidential pick who can also atack McCain in McCain's own area of strength. That's a useful weapon to be able to deploy. Finally, there's the symbolism at play here.

For sure, one should be wary of how much impact Veep nominees have, but Webb's upside seems more obvious and more telling than that offered by many (any?) of the other leading candidates. If Obama is the "wine track" candidate, why not have a "beer truck" Veep? What's the downside?

Finally, Matt asks: "And if everyone is freaking out about Obama’s “weakness” in states that Democrats need to win, why aren’t we talking about Clinton getting annihilated in Minnesota or Washington?"

Well, that's easy: it's because she's not going to be the Democratic nominee.

UPDATE: Just to be clear here, the optics still massively favour Obama in November and it may well be that he doesn't need to do as well amongst white working-class voters as previous Democratic nominees given his ability to appeal to middle-class and upscale moderates. But this makes the point too: he has no need for a Veep who might help him on those areas, so why not choose someone who may be able to help him in areas of comparative weakness? (Of course Wbb might not want the job...)

Obama's Hillbilly Problem

Via Ross, this map demonstrates the extent to which Obama has been crushed in Appalachia. The Redneck Arc shows the counties in which Hillary Clinton won more than 65% of the vote. When the final tallies from West Virginia and Kentucky are included, the areas currently white will be coloured pink too. As Ross says, this would seem to support the idea of a Vice-Presidential pick such as, say, Senator Jim Webb. I refer you to this post for more on why this might be a good idea.

In summary: "Webb's appeal as a running-mate is greater than that and greater too than the prospect of his being able to compensate, to some extent anyway, for John McCain's appeal to working-class white men. It's not hard to imagine Webb helping the ticket in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, to say nothing of the benefits his populism could potentially have in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. He may, in fact, be just the sort of culturally conservative Democrat Obama needs to balance his ticket."

Putting Webb on the ticket might send a reassuring signal to these voters. Sure, Obama wants to expand the battleground south and west, to Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico (states which will increase in importance in years to come as the rust and Redneck belts continue to decline in population and, consequently, electoral significance), but a Vice-President Webb would, as I've argued, be an effective partner for Obama's "Unity Ticket" - more effective and more plausible, I hazard, than an unconvincing - and unwelcome - shotgun marriage with Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Webb has a new book out! What fortuitous timing...

The Case for Jim Webb

I mentioned some of the factors that make Jim Webb, the Democratic Senator from Virginia, a less than entirely compelling Vice-Presidential pick for Barack Obama, here. To recap: when he campaigned for the Senate in 2006 Webb was, not to put too fine a point on it, hopeless on the campaign trail. You could see that it pained him to even ask people to vote for him and he plainly had little patience for the self-abasement and daily humiliations of life on the campaign trail. He is not a natural baby-kisser. My sense - from his own writing and what I've read about him - is that he is also difficult, stubborn, awkward, cussed and not to be trifled with. these too may not be attributes best-suited to a national campaign in the modern political era.

What he is, however, is something more important: he's clearly his own man and, crucially in this political era, a man one can respect even - or especially - if one disagrees with him (eg, on trade). There is, to use the word that came to dominate his 2006 Senate campaign, an authenticity to Webb that most politicians would chew their right arm off to possess. That is to say, I'd trust that Jim Webb had come to a decision honestly and because he considered it the wisest, most appropriate cause of action, not because a focus group or political calculation had persuaded him it was the most advantageous way forward. This would be true, I think, even in areas of disagreement. Perhaps especially so. In other words, I think he acts in good faith which is, in the end, all one can ask of any politician.

And so there's something compelling to the idea of Vice-President Webb. The political considerations first: the Democrats have no other plausible candidate with anything like Webb's military experience. At the very least one might think Obama could ask Webb to be a Shadow Secretary of Defense in advance of nominating him to the post after the election. Sure, Webb was a Republican until recently, but in addition to the Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam he served as Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. He also, and vitally from a Democratic point of view, opposed the Iraq War for reasons that, alas, look more cogent than ever.

That he resigned from Reagan's Pentagon on a point of principle (opposing cuts to the Navy) also a) stamps him as a man the US military ought not to be afraid of and b) marks him as a man cut from different cloth to that customarily worn by politicians today. Clearly, however, his presence on the Presidential ticket would go some way towards reassuring some voters that Obama's national security team is not going to be wet behind the ears and that there'll be no repeat of the drift and squandered opportunities of the Clinton years. Webb won't be learning on the job.

Secondly, even allowing for the truth that Webb could probably not have won Virginia without George Allen's self-immolation it remains the case that Virginia is trending Democratic and Webb's presence on the ticket could conceivably help Obama win the Commonwealth's 14 electoral college votes. Pinching states from the opposition is no small thing.

But really Webb's appeal as a running-mate is greater than that and greater too than the prospect of his being able to compensate, to some extent anyway, for John McCain's appeal to working-class white men. It's not hard to imagine Webb helping the ticket in virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, to say nothing of the benefits his populism could potentially have in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. He may, in fact, be just the sort of culturally conservative and genuine Democrat Obama needs to balance his ticket.

A Scots-Irish candidate for a Scots-Irish people?

Megan McArdle is surely right that Jamie Kirchik's prediction that Massachusetts may vote Republican this November seems, shall we say, implausible. Kirchik suggests that:

a Scots-Irish war veteran as the Republican nominee complicates predictions about whom Kennedy Country will support come November.

Well, up to a point Lord Copper. As Megan says, "Irish" America is largely catholic, whereas the descendants of the Scots-Irish, er, are not. More to the point, not many of them live in New England. The Scots-Irish constituency, to the extent is still exists, is found in Tennessee, southern Virginia and the Carolinas.

Still, in pointing out Kirchik's mistake, Megan commits one of her own. It wasn't Iain Paisley who popularised the oft-misquoted line that Northern Ireland be "protestant nation for a protestant people", it was James Craig (himself of fine Scots-Irish stock), the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. This, for sure, offends modern sensiblities but ought to be remembered in the context of its time. To wit, an era in which Eamon de Valera insisted upon the virulently Roman Catholic nature of the Free State to the south. As Craig told the House of Commons in 1934:

The hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State. It would be rather interesting for historians of the future to compare a Catholic State launched in the South with a Protestant State launched in the North and to see which gets on the better and prospers the more. It is most interesting for me at the moment to watch how they are progressing. I am doing my best always to top the bill and to be ahead of the South.

Until the last 20 years, of course, Ulster (or, rather, the six counties of Nothern Ireland) was "ahead of the South" in economic terms at least. This does not, for sure, justify or exonerate the discrimination faced by catholics in the north, but it might be remembered that protestants faced suspicion and discrimination of their own in the south (though not, admittedly, on the scale of that endured by catholics in the north). Still, the decline in the protestant population south of the border from 1922-45 is not simply a matter of birth-rate politics.

Anyway, the American politician most closely associated with the Scots-Irish is Senator Jim Webb. Heck, he did write the book* on the subject. Webb, of course, is sometimes mentioned as a potential Vice-Presidential** pick for the Democratic party and to the extent that the Scots-Irish constituency exists - though it's more a matter of sentiment and attitude than strict bloodlines these days - Webb's appeal to the white working class in Appalachia might be useful to Barack Obama.

*Well-worth reading. Its account of British and Irish history is overly simplistic and Webb's vision is somewhat corrupted by an impossible romanticism, but it's a splendid, even stirring, read. To wit:

Standing on the mountain, I worry that when this generation dies, the memory of those who went before me will be lost just as completely, buried under the avalanche of stories that have on occasion ridiculed my people and trivialised their journey. They came with nothing, and for a complicated set of reasons, many of them still have nothing. The slurs stick to me, standing on these graves. Rednecks. Trailer-park trash. Racists. Cannon fodder. My ancestors. My people. Me.

This people gave our country great things, including its most definitive culture. Its bloodlines have flowed in the veins of at least a dozen presidents, and in many of our greatest soldiers. It created and still perpetuates the most distinctly American form of music. It is imbued with a unique and unforgiving code of personal honor, less ritualized but every bit as powerful as the samurai code. Its legacy is broad, in many ways defining the attitudes and values of the military, of working-class America, and even of the peculiarly populist form of American democracy itself.

**I have my own doubts about this, mind you. Webb is not a natural campaigner, though this has the benefit of demonstrating a natural, awkward cussedness that, whatever else it may be, is, in the buzzword of the day, authentic. But I doubt that Webb is a "team-player" and suspect he'd be more useful to the Democratic party in the Senate than the Vice-President's office.

For lots more on Webb and McCain I can't recommend Robert Timberg's The Nightingale's Song highly enough.

The Scots-Irish connection

I've an op-ed ($ may be required?) in Wednesday's edition of The Scotsman in which I try to persuade a generally sceptical readership that, whatever they might think, the United States is unlikely to give up on its gun culture any time soon and that, more importantly, there are well-established cultural and historical reasons for American's lov affair with guns. It is, briefly, part of the American id.

An extract:

By road, Blacksburg is only a few hundred miles from Washington DC; psychologically, it belongs to a different America altogether. This was once frontier territory, the front line of the American colonies as the fledgling republic began its relentless expansion west. These hills - the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Smoky Mountains and the rest - were largely settled by Scots-Irish immigrants whose ethos and culture played a still under-appreciated part in the formation of the United States. If America's gun culture has a spiritual home, it is to be found in Appalachia.

As Jim Webb, the Vietnam hero who was elected to the Senate last November, writes in Born Fighting, his history of the Scots-Irish in the US, the people here "are a culture founded on guns, which considers the Second Amendment sacrosanct, while literary and academic America considers such views not only archaic but also threatening". It's not, of course, only "literary and academic America" that struggles to understand this proudly redneck culture; the rest of the world does too.

If Webb is right - and I think he is - then the gun is an inescapable part of America's sense of itself. If the colonists had not been armed, they could not have rebelled against King George. Such sentiments may seem anachronistic or even callous in the wake of the worst mass shooting in US history, but no attempt to understand why America, alone of western countries, remains an armed society can hope to be successful without appreciating the historical - and constitutional - place the gun has played in its history. Wishing it otherwise is not enough to wish it away.

That culture still thrives. Three summers ago, I attended what proudly billed itself as "America's Largest Machine Gun Shoot and Military Gun Show" in rural Kentucky. Guns from all over the world were on sale, while patrons could rent .50 calibre machine guns to blast away at wrecked cars, buses and boats. Time after time, I was asked if there was anything like this in Scotland. "No, not really," I would say, mustering as much understatement as seemed sensible. "You could see how people could twist this into something it's not," one sub-machine gun wielding man told me. "But," he insisted, "these people are just average Joes having fun."

And for the most part, he was right.