Changing Times Down South

by on

Jon Stewart’s Daily Show finds Mississippi and Alabama are changing with the rest of the country. Without overstating things, I believe at least some of the bright red states that passed anti-gay-marriage amendments just a few years ago probably would not do so today.

16 Comments for “Changing Times Down South”

  1. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    interesting video to watch — john and stephen’s comedy shows often do the best news and investigative journalism. It is an odd thing when such shows are actually much better at giving us news, then many other news programs. That would be the Daily Show and Colbert Nation (E’s Soup is also funny, most mostly sticks to mocking celebrities and reality tv)

    I do wonder how much editing was involved and whether or not seeing a camera — or being on a news show — impacts what people say they believe?

    Happy Halloween!

  2. posted by Thom on

    “I believe at least some of the bright red states that passed anti-gay-marriage amendments just a few years ago probably would not do so today.”

    You are kidding, right? NC passed a constitutional amendment 18 months ago with 61% of the vote – a state that actually voted for Obama in 2008! Fat chance that any state in the south would vote in favor of gay marriage any time soon, especially given the progress we see in other states. Southern states pride themselves on bucking progress – the more blue states that allow gay marriage, the stronger the sentiment will be in red states to hold fast and resist the inevitable. Lincoln should have let them go in the 1860s……

    • posted by Ed on

      As a Yankee who has spent a decent amount of time in the South I would not say that Southerners take pride in bucking progress. I would say, though, that many southerners take pride in being hyper judgmental nosebags, who spend way too much time in other people’s business. I would also say many are narrow minded and bigoted in their views. But the same could be said about most LEFTISTS. The only difference is in their positions on issues.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Without overstating things, I believe at least some of the bright red states that passed anti-gay-marriage amendments just a few years ago probably would not do so today.

    The operative words are “at least some”, that is, a number of the states that passed anti-marriage amendments in the 2004-2006 binge are getting closer to turning on the issue. No doubt that is true. But opposition remains high in most of those states.

    In general, the Silver model has been reasonably accurate so far, with the caveat that public opinion in some (but not all) states are moving in our direction somewhat more quickly than predicted. The states where this seems to be true are states with large, concentrated urban populations (e.g. Texas – 48% support, 48% opposition (12/2012)) and states that are adjacent to states with marriage equality in place (e.g. Nevada – 54% support, 43 % opposition (2/2013)).

    But we should not put on the rose colored glasses just yet, it seems to me, for several reasons:

    (1) Opposition remains high in most “bright red” states with anti-marriage amendments, most particularly in the Southern states, just as predicted by Silver’s model. Here’s a sampling of relatively recent polls I garnered last night: Alaska – 57 % opposition (2/2013), Nebraska – 57% opposition (10/2012), Louisiana – 59% opposition (2/2013), Kansas – 63 % opposition (2/2013). Georgia – 65 % opposition (12/2012), Kentucky – 65 % opposition (4/2013), West Virginia – 61 % opposition (9/2011), South Carolina – 69 % opposition (9/2011), Alabama – 69% opposition (4/2013), Utah – 71% opposition (7/2012), Arkansas -75% opposition (10/2012), and Mississippi – 78% opposition (11/2011).

    (2) Polls don’t count; turnout does. Anti-equality religious conservatives turned out in high numbers relative to their percentage of the population in anti-amendment balloting in every states, and the amendments typically passed with margins that were 5-7% higher than the polls predicted. We can expect that to happen in repeal amendments, too. That’s the reason why religious conservatives are pushing so hard for a “vote of the people” in Hawaii, where polls show about 55% support for marriage equality. Religious conservatives know that they can handle that margin, particularly in an off-year election, when younger, pro-equality voters don’t vote.

    (3) Structural impediments will slow down the process in many states. For example, even if Wisconsin’s Republican legislature was willing to put repeal before the people today (which it is not, not by a long shot), the repeal process will take about five years (repeal must be passed by both houses of the legislature in two consecutive two-year sessions, and then be put to a vote of the people). I’ve looked at the repeal requirements over the course of the last year, and even if every state in the union was ready to repeal today, the process would not likely be concluded until 2018-2020.

    (4) Political impediments will slow down the repeal process in many states. Again, using Wisconsin as an example, both houses of the legislature are dominated by Republicans, and the Republicans who control the legislature are committed social conservatives. The last few moderates standing (e.g. Dale Schultz) are going down this election cycle, being replaced by social conservatives (e.g. Howard Marklein). Compounding the problem, our Governor thinks he is presidential timber (G-d help us all if he is) and will pull a Chris Christie, stopping the repeal process in its tracks if it shows any signs of life. In Wisconsin, we are not expecting a successful repeal until after the 2020 redistricting.

    I don’t doubt that premise is right, Stephen: “At least some” states with anti-marriage amendments are turning more quickly than the Silver model predicted. But I doubt that it will have much practical effect, for the reasons I’ve stated. We remain in a decade-long slog for equality, unless SCOTUS wipes the board clean in 2018-2020, as I expect it will.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The longitudinal data is hard to unearth, but what I’m seeing of the changes in polling data over time suggests to me that while “bright red” states with anti-marriage amendments are moving toward increasing acceptance of marriage equality, the rate of change (that is the percentage increase over time) is significantly slower than in “blue” and even “purple” states. I’m not 100% certain of this, but it seems to be the case from the data I’ve been able to unearth. If I’m right about that, then the “equality gap” is widening rather than narrowing.

      I realize that this is all wonk stuff, but I have learned over the years that hard data, when available, is a lot more reliable than anecdotal evidence.

      I liked John in CA’s comment (“Don’t mistake manners for morality.“) by the way. I suspect that sums it up, pretty much.

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    #facepalm

    It sounds to me like no one involved in making The Daily Show is actually from the South. What did they think would happen? A lynching? I was raised in East Texas. People are almost always sweet to your face. It’s what happens after you leave the room that is revolting. I saw it happen to African American people as a child and I am sure it happens to me today. I wouldn’t care except that they vote to deny me the same rights they take for granted. I’ll believe the South has changed when they repeal their anti-gay marriage amendments.

  5. posted by Don on

    I’m really not that surprised. The South has a strain of live and let live in its public persona. The private one is where all the hate and animosity would usually reside. Black people can attest to this. Oh you won’t be harassed in public for being black anymore or called names. But just try to apply for a job . . .

    A big part of it goes to learning its lesson for having been shamed due to race relations. The racist attitudes are still there for a significant proportion of the population. They just don’t put a public face on it anymore. They “know better.”

    Which was already a Southern custom. Smile and say hi at Mary Lou at the grocery store and then go home and call your friends to say “I saw that lyin’, cheatin’ slut at the grocery store . . . she has some nerve!” Yankees call that two-faced. Confederates actually call it polite, if not “being Christian to her.” (really not kidding)

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      …followed by “bless her/his/their heart(s)” which we like to think makes whatever mean thing we just said not so horrible. When I lived in NYC my friends got the biggest kick out of it. I’m so tone deaf to it from my childhood that it didn’t even register to me how bitchy it sounded.

  6. posted by Kosh III on

    Yeah. What Don, Thom and Houndtendor said. You’ve got to be kidding.

    It will only change when 1) Full faith and credit is established and 2) all these fascist theocrats die off.

  7. posted by Kosh III on

    But bless their hearts……

  8. posted by JohnInCA on

    Don’t mistake manners for morality.

  9. posted by Jorge on

    I’m really not that surprised. The South has a strain of live and let live in its public persona. The private one is where all the hate and animosity would usually reside.

    …

    Yankees call that two-faced. Confederates actually call it polite, if not “being Christian to her.” (really not kidding)

    Humph! I’m not surprised, either. Don’t try that PDA stuff in New York without brass.

    And don’t try it anywhere at night without being ready for a fight. Have I read too many murder stories?

    But I don’t think being “two-faced” is uniquely a Southern phenomemon. There’s a term some (mostly urban) people call code-switching. And there’s another called radical honesty. I know far more people who do the former than those who do the latter on matters of race and sexual orientation.

  10. posted by Jorge on

    Really, now, this discussion hits a nerve. I know this is irrelevant, but there are some things I *will not* say to people’s faces–but I will still call people out on stuff. People want to be Southern polite, be Southern polite. You want to be New York blunt, be New York blunt. Don’t stab me in the back gentleman (or gentlelady) style and expect I’m not going to split your head open New York style. Or bash me on the head New York style thinking next time you can walk right up to me looking like Bride of Chuckie and I’ll do nothing instead of smacking the club out of your hand so hard it orbits the earth and spanks your behind like you richly deserve. Their oversized egos mean nothing to me. Grow a pair.

  11. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    Their was a good documentary film released a while back called ‘ Small Town Gay Bar’. It looked at a gay bar that was opened up in a small, Southern-red state-community. I just been watching it now on Netty-flicky. I suspect that this is probably a bit more realistic, but (to put a positive spin on what the Daily Show may have been trying to show) perhaps the fact that more Southerns — being interviewed on camera — feel the need to be ‘Southern polite’ (up north we might call it ‘Minnesota nice’) is a wee bit of progress. They may still be bigots and they may still vote that way and say things (when they think no gay people or liberals are in ear shot), but they also realize that its a civil right issue and they need to pay it the sort of ‘politeness’ that they show to say, people of color, Muslim or Jewish Americans or immigrants.

  12. posted by Lori Heine on

    I don’t want to sit on everybody’s lap, gaze into their eyes and plumb the depths of their souls to see if they really, really, really, really lurrrrve me. I don’t care.

    I care how they treat me. That is, I believe, the point the author of this post was trying to make. The slobbering childishness of “But how do they really FEEL” is embarrassing and degrading to everyone involved.

    Change will not happen overnight. It will not happen quickly, though it is happening faster than “progressives” will admit. To maintain the power to coerce others, they must focus on feelings…nothing more than feelings…and insist that THEY can make change happen faster. They cannot.

    We live in an infantile, fast-food, instant-gratification culture. Thus are we prone to confuse difficulty with impossibility.

    Instead of sitting around crying because change isn’t happening faster — and engaging in activity that only retards change and results in backlash — I prefer to work at it slowly and steadily. The change that results from approaching it that way is the only sort that lasts.

  13. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    I guess the catch is how a person feels about you MIGHT just impact how they treat you. I realize that no one has the powers of Professor X or Jean-Grey, but I also realize that if people do not like you and believe absurd things about you; i.e. that you are the anti-Christ, molesting children, burning flags and have green blood…well that might might how they treat you….

Comments are closed.