Dixie Babble

I don’t disagree with the basic premise of this column by Tina Dupuy – that the South needs to be more welcoming to “durn furriners,” and lay off a few helpings of Ma Romney’s “cheesy grits” – but her statements are so oversimplified that they undercut her argument.

What makes a “real Southern candidate”?  What makes anyone “real Southern”?  Sure, Newt Gingrich was born in Pennsylvania and still talks like he was, but he graduated from a Georgia high school, and then from Emory, and then from Tulane, and lived in the South longer than I have (and I was born here).  Is he still not a “real” Southerner because he doesn’t drawl?  (And, oh my God, am I actually defending Newt Gingrich?  Do I have a fever?  Will someone please check?)

How many of the South’s Republicans these days are “real” Southerners, and how many moved here for work or retirement during the Sun Belt boom?  How many of the voices of Southern conservatism sound more like Newt than, say, Haley Barbour?

How does anyone think saying the South’s economy should be more like California’s is a good idea right now?  (Immigration had little or nothing to do with California’s looming catastrophe, of course, but a better rhetorical strategy might be called for here.)

Some would argue that the South’s rise in the late 20th century was fueled by immigration from the Northeast and the Rust Belt.  Some would argue that this immigration was spurred by the South’s right-to-work laws, cheap labor and land, and the wonders of modern air-conditioning.  Some would argue that the South’s conservatism, nativism, exploitative labor practices, and love of fried foods have deep, deep roots.  Some would argue that any arguments that might pull up those roots will have to be stronger than Dupuy’s.