301 CHRONICLESnism that existed in the South duringnthe 1930s appears to be dead.”nShow me a Jeeter Lester prototypenwho has even heard of Jerry Falwelln(albeit his grandmother may watchnhim on TV), much less have thencerebral capacity to make commonncause with Moral Majority initiatives,nand I’ll show you a rare individual. Anbaseline redneck female who quotesnMarabel Morgan, Darien Cooper, ornPhyllis Schlafly may have surfacednsomewhere, but my “researchnfindings” tell me that the probability ofnlocating a person with such a combinationnof traits is less than the likelihoodnof finding a Spanish-speakingngiraffe in a dairy herd.nHow could such incongruous reasoningncome to be solemnized innprint? Simple. Such thinking is wellnwithin one standard deviation of thenmean of accepted professorial wisdom.nThe picture of tobacco chewing,nBudweiser-gutted simian with thenmoral fortitude to assess moralpolitical-socialnissues and to identifynwith the world view of Moral Majoritynis credible to them. For them, both thenredneck life-style and the Moral Majoritynperspective are worthless and bynthat criteria are fungible. Such incongruousncombinations of traits are constitutivento liberal cautery. How else donwe explain the charges of “fascism”nand “anti-Semitism” leveled againstnthe almost sycophantically pro-Israelnpolitical and religious figures on thenright.nContrary to the authors’ representations.nSoutherners are not mesmerizednby consciousness of race. The Southerners’nintuitive sense of place—as anhuman being among other humannbeings, not as a repository of displacednanger on a mission—combined withnthe lineage of republican virtue continuesnto provide some leavening consistencynand a relatively immunizingneffect to statist orthodoxy. For manynSouthern whites, blacks, like fire ants,nare often an undesirable component ofnreality. However, aversion to blacks isnnot a component of political consciousness,nexcept in the demonologynof liberal moralesse oblige. The rednecksnare rather tolerant—not requiringna whites-for-whites consciousness,nalthough constantiy faced with blacksfor-blacksnpolitical arguments. As angeneral rule, they join with blacks innelecting faithful Democrats (e.g.,nblacks and rednecks united to electnGeorge Wallace and numerous otherngovernors and legislators in the post-n1970 era). True enough, Southern votersnhave never kept a proper rein onnpoliticians. In the pre-1970 era, whennsegregation was almost the only issuenin many elections, the voters provedngullible. Professed (though not lasting)nsupport for segregation served liberalnpoliticians well as a camouflage fornhiding from the voters their overallncommitment to an adversary culture.nFar too easily fooled by this tactic.nSoutherners allowed men like ListernHill, John Sparkman, and Jim Fulbrightnlong careers. To its credit, however,nthe South has also sent men likenRichard Russell, Sam Ervin, John Rarick,nLarry McDonald, and Jim Allennto office.nThe authors’ South is that of WilburnCash, not Richard Weaver. LikenWeaver, however, the authors feel thatnreligion is an idea which has consequences.nThe authors posit the religionnof the Southerner as a Calvinistic,npuritanical gospel whichnemphasizes salvation rather than classnwarfare, an opiate that keeps the rednecknrhasses poor and docile. ThenSouthern white the authors depict isnracist, sectionalist, provincial, harshlynCalvinistic, sensual, a hedonistic fascistnwho represents a detestible historynand despicable folk culture filled withn”a necessary Christianity and cruelty.”nThe authors regard as malevolent anynmanifestation of religion in the Southnwhich is not rooted in Calvinistic biblicismnor the Reformational lineage.nThe authors’ central complaint,nhowever, is not religious but political;nthe redneck wants a government of thenfashion which the Republic wasnfounded to perpetuate. Rednecks “hatenbureaucracy. They want the governmentnto take a laissez-faire approach tonthem as individuals.” Even when removednfrom the South by employment.nSoutherners do not become displacednpersons spiritually, but arenoriented toward home. “They wish tonstay in the South, and when theynleave, they maintain their traditionsnelsewhere—and look forward to anneventual return to kith and kin.” Rednecksnwish to avoid entanglement withngovernment, and they buy their guns,ntrucks, tools, and fishing equipment asnnnsymbols of their independence, selfdignity,nand regional attachments.nBeing men who are given to thinkingnin communal and associational termsnrather than in artificial, contrived,nrhetorical, or class interest categories,nthey are ill-fitted for their assignednplace in Marxist dogma.nSouthern poverty, as the authorsnassess it, is the result of sin, specificallynthe wickedness of insufficient unionization,nresulting from an inadequatelyndeveloped class consciousness. Itnwould be pointiess on this issue tondebate the economics of comparativenadvantage with the authors, for theirncommitment to unionization as a curento poverty is fundamentally a matter ofnfaith, not reason. The ignored realitynis that contemporary unions are generallynorganized against other workers—nnot against capitalists—and often arenorganized against any reasonable conceptnof the common good. Expectationsnthat unions will work (or strike)nfor the common good run contrary tonthe very purpose of unions.nAs empty as The Southern Rednecknis as a report on research findings, itndoes give the reader a religious testament,nanathematizing the South’sn”fantastic historical mythology” and itsncultural continuity over time with itsn”false consciousness tied to otherworldlynreligion.” The authors haventheir own vision. In the name of Progress,nthe Southern legacy and Weltanschauungnshould be broken and Marxistnfundamentalism enshrined in annewly raised “class consciousness.”nThe quest is satisfied by the revoltingnagainst the old social bonds, not bynreconstruction of visible new ones. Nonhistorical example, no factual realitynwhich shows the millennium to benfictitious, can stand against the religiousnfaith which inspires the destructionnof old loyalties. It is not so muchnthe idiosyncracies, the argot, the lifestylenof rednecks, their aversion tonhaute couture, or their love for countrynmusic which incites the hatred of thenintellectual messiahs. It is the whole ofnSouthern history. The Southern legacy,nand those who carry forth its lineage,nreflect an ancient traditionnsteeped in organic Anglican liberty ofnrestraint on compulsive power and itsnpotential for accomplishing good, asncontrasted with the Gallic libertynwhich seeks to free the exercise ofn