Josh Segall

I'd mark myself down as skeptical that we're going to see a ton more Childers-style wins in the context of a non-special election, but if we do it'll be built on the backs of guys like Josh Segall who's running for congress in Alabama and who I met last night courtesy of our mutual friend Chris Hayes. Josh is, among other things, running on a strong campaign of economic nationalism that he thinks will appeal to the enduring sensibilities of Alabama voters at a time when they're disgruntled with the consequences of military nationalism abroad but hardly eager to abandon the entire mindset.

On the merits, I don't think that kind of approach to economic policy is very promising, but it's an interesting theory of electoral politics and I think not as problematic on the merits as things like doomed efforts at world conquest. Meanwhile, Segall's marrying that to a welcome message about the need to do more for our veterans and especially our national guardsman. Not sure he really has enough of a drawl to pull off Alabama, but he's a legitimate 4th generation Alabamian so maybe it's just my yankee prejudice that says he needs a thicker accent.

Comments

It's curious to me how liberals think it's cool to push 'economic nationalist' ie, xenophobic, protectionist schemes in order to win elections (even though they know that they're wrong) yet they get all bent out of shape when Rove puts a gay marriage amendment on the docket that he knows will never pass.

Posted by jamie | May 14, 2008 1:54 PM

But what will the voters of Alabama think when they discover that he showed his penis in Forgetting Sarah Marshall?

Posted by Hank Scorpio | May 14, 2008 2:16 PM

Matt, didn't I just hear you say on your Table with Ross Douthat on HITS that you dislike it when Dems think they can out-hawk Republicans by making things like veterans' benefits a national security issue? I think you're absolutely right about that.

Posted by Random Dude | May 14, 2008 2:48 PM

I went to college with Josh Seagall (and Chris Hayes) at Brown. Josh was a great guy who was always involved in activism, young Dems, Gore 00, even when they Kool Kids were Nadering out.

On the other hand he's like 5'5". And Chris Hayes was always a smug and arrogant peacock. Ask him to play you his musical spoof of Die Hard (for real) with every song in the same 3/4 meter.

Posted by Matt | May 14, 2008 3:08 PM

"Matt," What's with the height-ism and player hating? Josh Segall and Chris Hayes are two terrific, accomplished under-30 progressives fighting the good fight. How can you accuse someone else of smugness?

Posted by DB | May 14, 2008 3:56 PM

Does Segall's site mention the district he's running in and what communities he'd be representing? All I found was a reference to "Eastern Alabama" and that his HQ are in Montgomery... he should put up a district map or at least a district number. There's an open seat in that part of the world, AL-2, which it turns out he's not running for.

Posted by Brittain33 | May 14, 2008 4:05 PM

The "next major thing": Economic Nationalism - leads to -protectionism- leads to-isolationism-leads to yahooism.
Remember, the Bushies are actually isolationists themselves, simply isolationists with big sticks.

Posted by M. Carey | May 14, 2008 4:44 PM

I don't know Tuscaloosa from Turin, but methinks four generations may not be a lot in the deep south. Perhaps he's trumpeting his family's stay not as a sign of strength, but to counteract a potential line of attack?

Posted by scythia | May 14, 2008 6:16 PM

Self-Hating Democrats

Why, exactly, the skepticism about the reproducibility of what happened in MS-01?

If Childers were some especially charismatic figure, or held some other unique advantages, yes, I could see that as a reason to distinguish what happened last night from what is likely to happen in November. Likewise, if his opponent had been some unusually incompetent or unattractive Republican hack, maybe you wouldn't want to generalize. Perhaps if there was some reason to believe that this district was unlikely to behave like other R+10 districts, that there had been a recent influx of Blacks, Latinos and gays changing its demographics, for example, then, yes, I could see why you wouldn't want to generalize. But were any of these factors actually present in this race?

If not, if this was the typical match-up in the typical R+10 district that it certainly seems to be, why, exactly, do you not expect the Dem winning such districts by 8 points in November to be about middle range of probability? Is it that you believe that we are right, but the voters cannot possibly ever be convinced in any numbers that we are right, outside of our limited enclaves of relative sanity? Or is it that you expect the Republicans to pull out some mad genius strategem at the end to change the game back to the litany of Dem defeat and despair that you seem more comfortable with? Was I missing something, or did they not seem like they were worried enough about losing this one that they already deployed everything that they have in their arsenal on this one, and that arsenal has now been shown to be sadly wanting?

Now, it is certainly true that just because we won these three R+ districts in April/May of 2008, we are in any way guaranteed of similar sized swings our way in November. Things could change again before Election Day. But it's also true that these districts, and other R+ districts that haven't been assayed since 2006, are in no way bound to follow their earlier R+ behavior either. Things definitely have changed since 2006. It should be noted, though, that this April/May of 2008 behavior is the latest behavior we have to generalize from, and has that advantage over earlier observations, and that the idea that things will change back to 2006 behavior by Election Day is speculative in comparison.

Has the experience of defeat become so second-nature that you reflexively cry poor on all of our successes.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | May 14, 2008 9:57 PM

"It's curious to me how liberals think it's cool to push 'economic nationalist' ie, xenophobic, protectionist schemes in order to win elections (even though they know that they're wrong) yet they get all bent out of shape when Rove puts a gay marriage amendment on the docket that he knows will never pass."

Most of it is just posturing, from most other politicians and possibly this guy, too. As far as I can tell, Segall's site has no issues page, so while I am likely to believe that he is closer to a protectionist than someone else might be, I'm willing to wait to see what else he has to say before I make up my mind. I don't like in Alabama, but if I did, and I had a chance to vote for someone who was a protectionist, I might do it. The stance against free trade might be a deal breaker, but if he's good in most other regards, there's a chance I'd give him a shot. But like I said before, a lot of it is just for show, so until he starts pledging to withdraw from the WTO like Kucinich, I'm not going to panic.

Posted by Brian | May 15, 2008 9:41 AM

Having been abroad and seen the tangible benefits that free trade have brought in bringing millions of people out of poverty so rapidly I've also grown skeptical of reflexive anti-trade messages. But we've got to acknowledge that concerns over free trade are real - it's not lazy bums grumbling about the loss of an easy lifestyle. Maybe it's time for a LBJ-style grand bargain on trade (as has been proposed by Barney Frank) where we link things like health care and something approaching living wages (instead of minimum wages) along with just the traditional concerns over labor and environmental issues to a continuation in extending free trade.

The thing is if we're going to pull something like that off in the current political climate you want guys like Josh Segall in Congress. Given the choice between a Bush Republican and a pragmatic Democrat with whom I'm going to disagree with I'll take the pragmatic Democrat as the opposition rather than a Bush Republican. It's a more reasonable path to a reasonable compromise.

Posted by reader | May 16, 2008 1:37 PM