Posted by Lost behind the fascinating struggle for supremacy in the State Senate are the actual roots of the conflict. The media sometimes depicts the battle as a liberal vs conservative, obstructionists vs Riley sycophants, or various other not-so accurate narratives.
Really the Senate fight boils down to personality and power. “The others” (as Zeb Little calls them) — Preuitt, Holley, Butler, McClain, Means, and Poole — aren’t significantly more conservative than the Barron Dems.
Don’t believe me? Just look at the facts.
Preuitt, McClain, Means, and Poole all were part of the Barron faction at one time or another and split off only when they saw a chance at increasing their pull by forming a new coalition. All have worked closely with Democratic interest groups like AEA, labor groups, and minority groups.
Jimmy Holley and Tom Butler endorsed Wesley Clark for President in 2004. Clark does have sterling military credentials, but his political positions are well within the national Democratic mainstream on economic, social, and international policy. One can even make a case that, on most issues, Clark is to the left of GOP punching bags Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean.
Tom Butler even served as a Gore delegate at the 2000 Democratic Convention.
Part of the misconception of the Preuitt Dems is due to the reputation that Gerald Dial had deservedly earned as a very conservative Democrat. Dial was the ringleader of the anti-Barron Dems and worked intimately not only with the Republican Senators but also Bob Riley. But with the defeat of Dial, the only true “Democrat In Name Only” is no longer in the picture.
The remaining anti-Barron Dems are just that. Democrats who are well within the mainstream of a Deep South Democratic party, but who have varying levels of disdain for the core group of the Barron leadership.
And what are the causes of this disdain? Personality and power. The Preuitt Dems don’t like the heavy handed tactics of the Barron leadership style and feel that the Barron core is too powerful and shortchanges the rest of the Senate.
Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong, but those are the roots of the dispute. Liberalism, conservatism, and Rileyism are really just distractions and part of a parlor game that obscures the true reasons the Senate Dems are split.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Guv’ner, what’s the relationship of the picture to your comments and who are those five people?
Call me Chauncey, Don. The individuals in the photograph are a group known as “the others” on the popular television program Lost, a show which Senator Zeb Little must watch too much of.
Thanks, Chauncey. You can tell I don’t have time nor the desire to watch anything on TV except news and weather. I wish I had time to add some sports.
[...] Sen. Rodger Smitherman has consistently been one of the more liberal senators in the state Senate. His move to join the coalition of Republicans and dissident Democrats demonstrates that our own Mr. Sparks had it exactly right: this division in the Senate Democrats is not about ideology or policy, it’s about personality and power. [...]
[...] December 13, 2006 It’s about personality Dan on 2006-12-13 @ 10:50 am I’m between finals, and I thought I should direct readers toDoc’s Political Parlor for an interesting post about the leadership of Lowell Barron. A teaser: Sen. Rodger Smitherman has consistently been one of the more liberal senators in the state Senate. His move to join the coalition of Republicans and dissident Democrats demonstrates that our own Mr. Sparks had it exactly right: this division in the Senate Democrats is not about ideology or policy, it’s about personality and power. [...]
[...] The divisions that led Holley and a few other Senate Democrats to caucus with Republicans had less to do with policy and more to do with personality and power. Our Chauncey Sparks examined that nicely a year ago. [...]