George Will: Mississippi election tells an American story |

George Will: Mississippi election tells an American story

“To understand the world, you must understand a place like Mississippi.”

— Attributed to William Faulkner


Time was, there was no other American place quite like it. Fifty-six years ago — a long time in adaptable America’s adjustment of its behavior to its creed — this university town was a few weeks from the Army’s arrival to assist the matriculation of James Meredith. Today, at a restaurant on Courthouse Square, Democrat Mike Espy is tucking into one of the state’s signature products, farm-raised catfish — as Bill Clinton’s first agriculture secretary, Espy got the Army to serve it to soldiers often — for fuel as he campaigns for a U.S. Senate seat.

Espy’s maternal grandfather, T.J. — Thomas Jefferson — Huddleston Sr. — was Mississippi’s richest African-American (nursing and funeral homes). In 1986, Huddleston’s grandson became the first African-American congressman from Mississippi since Reconstruction, winning the first of four elections in the nation’s most impoverished district. It was created, in conformity with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, to have a slight African-American majority. Then as now, his axiom was: “You must excite your black voters and not incite your white voters.”

Today he is 64 and has two major opponents. Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi’s former agriculture and commerce commissioner, was appointed to the Senate in April when Thad Cochran resigned for health reasons in his seventh term. Chris
McDaniel, also a Republican, is a fire-breather who recently has been informing voters that Robert E. Lee “opposed both slavery and secession.” Espy’s initial fear was that Donald Trump would get McDaniel out of the race — “offer him an ambassadorship” — to make it easier for Hyde-Smith to reach 50 percent on Nov. 6.

All three will then be on the ballot, with no party labels. Polls show Hyde-Smith slightly ahead of Espy, but both under 30 percent and double digits ahead of McDaniel. If neither Espy nor Hyde-Smith wins
50 percent of the vote, there will be a run-off three weeks later. Here is the arithmetic Espy is using to try to pry open the wallets of national Democratic donors:

Assume that he wins
95 percent of the African-
American turnout. If that turnout is 33 percent of the total state turnout, as it was in 2016 when Hillary Clinton expended no resources on Mississippi, he needs 28 percent of the remaining vote. If African-American turnout is 35 percent — the African-American portion of the state’s registered electorate — he would need 26 percent of the other votes. If African-American turnout mirrors the African-American portion of the state’s population (37 percent), he needs to receive 24 percent of the remaining vote. If the African-American turnout is 39 percent of the total, a surge in turnout similar to what occurred in the Alabama special Senate election won by Democrat Doug Jones, Espy will need just 22 percent of the remaining vote. He won 12 percent of the white vote in his first congressional election, 40 percent in his third.

Because it has the highest percentage of African-
Americans among the 11 formerly Confederate states, Mississippi is demographically more favorable for Democrats than Alabama (26 percent). But Alabama’s African-American electorate is more urban (Birmingham, Mobile) than Mississippi’s and hence easier to mobilize.

Something in this state’s social soil — a rich loam of complexities and tragedies — has nourished writers: Eudora Welty, Walker Percy, Shelby Foote, today Jesmyn Ward (“Sing, Unburied, Sing,” “Salvage the Bones”), and, of course, this town’s William Faulkner, who wrote: “Your illusions are a part of you like your bones and flesh and memory.” The odds are somewhat, but only somewhat, against Espy, so the possibility of victory is not an illusion. He is campaigning within the parameters of normal politics, which makes this a satisfying American as well as local moment.

George F. Will is a columnist for
The Washington Post. Reach him
at [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.