Barbecues and Rhetoric

In his article of February 9, entitled "Color-Blind Populism," J. Wyatt Emmerich seems to applaud everything Mississippi Governor Cliff Finch has done, and sees him as some sort of redeemer for the state. According to him, Finch has wiped out racism and become the hero of the people. He has stood up against the "independent and covetous" legislature and united the poor blacks and whites into a brotherhood with political clout.

I too am a native Mississippian, and my views of our governor are quite different. Somehow I cannot believe that racism as strong as Mississippi's brand in the early '60s can be erased in a decade, and it is especially hard to credit Finch with any such development.

During Ross Barnett's administration Finch served in the legislature and voted for every piece of racist legislation that came down the pipe. His appeal to blacks came only after he realized the voting strength of blacks in Mississippi, and his motives fall into question. Furthermore, the unification of black and white factions of Mississippi's Democratic Party, while admirable, was well under way when Finch was elected; he was lucky enough to come along at the right time. Finch would be easier to believe if he did not keep reminding poor whites of his stand with Ross Barnett, who is still liked by poor whites because he had stood in the schoolhouse door.

But what has Finch done for the poor people of the state as their governor? He has channeled almost all of his energy into a campaign to force his gubernatorial succession bill through the legislature, and has pressed for a uniform $20 car tag bill (which ironically would help wealthy people with expensive cars more than anyone else). He has replaced competant state employees with his political hacks. He has used federal funds intended for social development programs to expand his personal staff. The list could go on and on.

The surprising thing is that Finch has managed to keep up his popularity, this being accomplished by numerous "Cliff Finch Appreciation Day" rallies, which usually include the serving of barbecued chicken. One can only guess at where the money for all of this comes, considering Finch's supporters are the poor working people.

He uses these rallies to claim as yet unaccomplished feats, and misquotes figures to beat the band. He will tell you that during his administration Mississippi's per capita income has risen to third in the nation--when only the rate of increase has done so. (This trend had been set before Finch was elected, and in a state as poor as Mississippi, a large increase is very easy to achieve, but almost meaningless. In fact, the dollar gap between Mississippi and the nation has increased.)

His speeches do more than make "high school English teachers cringe in disbelief"; they controvert the facts and convolute the issues. The "elocution is egregious," and the "underlying egalitarian message of his orations is obvious," (my emphasis added to Emmerich's observations), but oration can be the same as rhetoric, which is 90 per cent of Governor Finch.

The other 10 per cent is what he has actually done, and all of this is wrapped up in his push for succession. Somehow I fail to see how this actually benefits the people of Mississippi. It would be different if he were pushing for better schools, better health care, more commerce, etc., but these have been almost entirely ignored by him.

Finch's election in 1975 was a signal that the long era of irrationality in Mississippi gubernatorial races was not yet at an end. In that race he defeated William Winter in the Democratic primary and Gil Carmichael in the general election. Both opponents are among the most intelligent, articulate and truly progressive leaders the state had to offer.

Winter had stood for moderation on the race issue in the '50s and '60s, when it was unpopular and even dangerous to do so. He had opposed the conservative oligarchy in the state house since his election in the '40s, and had been instrumental in the passage of the state's first workman's compensation bill.

Carmichael had seen the need for a responsive two-party system in the state and had tilted with the "country club" establishment of the GOP. He had run against Big Jim Eastland for the Senate in 1972, a courageous undertaking if one considers that he did it without Nixon's support and that Eastland was one of the most powerfully established political figures in the state. In the 1975 race, Carmichael outlined rational and workable plans for improving the state. While he was doing this and Winter was voluntarily disclosing income tax returns, Finch was bagging groceries, refusing open press conferences and debates, and criticizing Winter for not disclosing more, even though he had himself disclosed nothing.

If he had disclosed his income, it may have come as a shock to his poor people's alliance. Finch is hardly a working man. He is a wealthy trial lawyer, whose income by the most conservative estimates was $60,000 the year before his election.

It is easy to understand Finch's appeal to the poor: He tells them what they want to hear. Mississippians are, on the average, so poor, and so tired of being reminded of it that they will listen to anyone who will tell them differently or promise to change it. Combined with this is an extremely low level of education, and when a campaign as slick as was Finch's (again, one can only wonder where the money came from) hit them, it was natural to fall for it.

We cannot change the election of Cliff Finch; it was legal and is over. But we do not have to go along with what he has done (or not done) and try to say, for optimism's sake, that it was good. Instead, we can expose him as what he is--a political animal of the worst sort, one who knows how to appeal to people's emotions rather than to their senses, one whose actions indicate only a desire for self-perpetuation, a follower elected to a position of leadership.

The poor people have not needed this type of "leadership." They need better jobs, better education, better health care, and an opportunity to more fully participate in the social and, especially, economic systems. This can be accomplished better by thoughtful and sincere, leadership (neither of which characterizes Finch) than by slogans, symbols barbecues and rhetoric (all of which are Finch's most conspicuous characteristics).

As long as poor people are ted rhetoric and misrepresentation instead of real opportunities, the state will stay that way. And as long as delusions of optimism such as those found in Emmerich's editorial go unchallenged, there will be no constructive change.

Guy T. Gillespie '77-4, a Government concentrator, lives in Pinola, Mississippi. He is writing a senior thesis on recent political developments in Mississippi.