Replies

“I’ve been trying to understand the seismic shift in the Mississippi electorate in the past six years. Growing up, constituents who were total strangers used to phone our house in Virginia, asking my father to help with their Social Security payments or disability benefits or other concerns. My brother and I were taught to be unfailingly polite to these callers, even when some of them launched into long explanations of their plight, clearly relieved to be talking to a compassionate listener, even one who was only 12 years old. My brother and I were taught, both explicitly and by example, to respect every single Mississippian. These were the people my father served with dedication and compassion and loyalty, the people who said with their votes that he was the man they wanted representing them in a national forum. He appealed to so many different voters: coming from a modest background as the son of two educators committed to lifelong learning and very traditional Southern Baptist values; working diligently to earn distinction in the Boy Scouts, high school, college, law school, the U.S. Navy, and the legal profession; espousing moderate views that upheld the state’s conservatism while avoiding any hint of radical jingoistic fervor; being able to work collegially with all members of our and others’ governments based in his strong international and domestic experience. All my life, people have described my father as a “statesman,” rather than the seedier “politician.” I decided to look up Merriam-Webster’s definition this morning:
Full Definition of STATESMAN
1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies
2: a wise, skillful, and respected political leader
That sounds about right. Until very recently, very few doubted his wisdom, skill, or respectability as a political leader. It seems the landscape, and not he, that has changed.

I’m struggling with this election because of my personal feelings about the Mississippi electorate. I was born in Mississippi; I chose to move to Mississippi three times in my adult life, 1) to join the Mississippi Teacher Corps and teach at Brookhaven High School, 2) to study for the Ph.D. in southern literature at the University of Mississippi, and 3) to join the faculty of the English Department at the University of Southern Mississippi. I’ve been a strong defender of Mississippi to any of her detractors, believing very profoundly that the people of Mississippi were the most considerate, generous, well-intentioned folks I ever knew. I feel disillusioned now, so I wanted to try to figure out how these wonderful people were spouting such hateful things, committing such outrageous acts, behaving in such a shameful manner.

I think that Mississippians are being snookered by neocon zealots on talk radio, Fox News, and elsewhere. The New Right values extremism, obstructionism, partisanship, and—frankly—ignorance. I am disappointed to realize that the New Right seems to want to walk hand-in-hand with the horrible strain of anti-intellectualism that sees universities as vocational schools and vilifies anyone expert in a field as somehow not living in the “real world” or representative of “real people.” But because no one can be an expert, everyone is, which is where the New Right finds its loudest voices: those with no training, education, or experience shouting down those who bring expertise to the table. I think this is the reason that so many seem swayed by my father’s opponent: he is valued for his lack. Lack of experience (he is not a “career politician.”) Lack of wisdom (he relies solely on Jesus, the Constitution, and common sense*—combined in the veneer of “goodness”). Lack of judgment (he vows to refuse federal monies and to try to impede legislation). Lack of specificity (what are “Mississippi values”?). Lack of perspective (how does he believe for one moment that a junior Senator from the poorest state will have any influence in Washington? How can he believe that he will not want his family to live with him in the D.C. area?). I see these “qualities” as a disingenuous pose, engineered to appeal to the very worst in our electorate. Hence, the illegal and immoral actions of his followers make sense—both in my mother’s nursing home and at the Hinds County Courthouse—because he trades in mindless fanaticism. I find his campaign appalling on intellectual, moral, and idealist levels. The fact that Mississippi voters are even considering his candidacy saddens me more than I can say. Mississippi used to be recognized as the most backward, prejudiced, ignorant holdback in our nation, hands down. This sea change makes me very afraid that we might deserve that mantle.

*Since there’s been widespread misunderstanding of this phrase in particular, let me clarify it. By “common sense,” I meant this person’s version of common sense, which is not sensical at all; that is, reasoning that keeping one dollar and refusing three from the federal government makes Mississippi come out on top. This version of “common sense” flies in the face of not only basic arithmetic, but also the lessons learned in any high school civics class (e.g., the difference in duties, responsibilities, and authority of the state legislature versus the U.S. Congress). There are similar discrepancies in the versions of Jesus and the Constitution, but hopefully the clarification of what I meant by “common sense” will serve as sufficient illumination.”