It really is astounding how people are picking up on the geography of partisan politics. I am going to read it and comment on it later. I will put an update note in the title when I do. I thought I would share it right away.
A quote from the article:
Today, there are quite a few very vocal neo-Confederates who think gun rights, states rights, the protection of white American culture and elimination of "excessive" taxation on the rich are the nation's preeminent concerns. Their anti-bellum mindset makes it impossible for them to accept scientific reality -- climate change, evolution, the true age of the planet -- and political reality -- America is becoming a more diverse, tolerant nation that does not share their fear-driven philosophy.
One of our two great political parties has been captured by the neo-Confederates and, because so many of them have been elected to Congress, the political system is gridlocked.I don't know if the author David Horsey is doing more than capitalizing on the popularity of the Lincoln movie and Lincoln to oppose the policies of conservative Republicans. To some extent though the essay depends on an awareness that the Republican party has become a party centered in the South.
He talks about how progressive change is delayed in the United States, but he really doesn't explain where this delay comes from. Essentially if you have a section of a nation that is a reactionary fortress and they control 25% of the representation, you have to get 67% of the rest of the nation to support something before it has a bare slightly over 50% majority. If you need to get an amendment passed, requiring 75% of the states to ratify something, you will need 100% of the states outside the reactionary block to get an amendment passed. I discuss this in my essay at www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm.
I think this article raises awareness of the nature of reaction in this nation as being regional, but indirectly. He calls the reaction neo-Confederate, but doesn't explain why and it doesn't necessarily mean conservatives from the South, it could be applied to conservatives anywhere.
However, I think it will tend to jog the public's mind to think about neo-Confederacy and the national geography of politics. Referring to an earlier blog, http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-rages-like-neo-confederate.html, this essay will certainly seem to Rush Limbaugh a further justification for his argument that the South is being attacked because it is conservative. This would depend on Limbaugh conflating the South with the Confederacy.