Jim Leutze mad as hell and wants his state back

Published November 20, 2014

By D. G. Martin

by D. G. Martin, One on One and host of UNC-TV's Bookwatch, November 16, 2014.D. G. Martin

“I am mad as hell and I want my state back.”

Former UNC-Wilmington Chancellor Jim Leutze wanted to use this phrase as the title for his new book about modern North Carolina history and politics. Eventually, he settled on another provocative title, “Entering North Carolina: Set Clocks Back 100 Years,” which The Charlotte Observer book columnist Dannye Romine Powell has named “best book title of the year.”

Leutze 's first title idea reflects the views of many North Carolinians who would like to reverse the recent changes in direction brought about by the Republican-controlled government in Raleigh.

On the other hand, as this month's elections indicated, more North Carolinians may approve these changes.

What are the changes that concern Leutze so much?

In his introduction, he summarizes the changes that concern him. “For those who were born or came here in the last four decades of the 20th Century, North Carolina seemed a relatively forward-looking state, with its emphasis on education, research, environment, good government and good roads. Then in 2010 and again in 2012, North Carolinians got a surprise. After 150 years of sporadic forward movement, North Carolina began a policy of astonishing deconstruction.

“A state that had slowly dug itself out of poverty and negative stereotypes began suddenly to go backward in time, with the election of committed conservatives in the governor's office and conservatives as the ruling majority in the state legislature. What are businessmen in North Carolina thinking? What are business interests in the country thinking? Is this a state to which they wish to come? Is this a portent of the future?”

Leutze compares recent changes to those in the late 19th Century when the so-called “Redeemers” took control of North Carolina government from progressive or populist forces in the post-Reconstruction era after the Civil War.

Although his history is admittedly partisan, Leutze's storytelling ability and background as a popular history teacher at UNC-Chapel Hill make his summary of North Carolina history good reading for Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats.

In his history of the 60 years after 1950, Leutze credits governors of both parties with moving North Carolina so that it was viewed “as one of the up-and-coming states in the country and surely one of the most progressive in the South.”

Leutze characterizes the groups that brought about the Republican triumph as new “Redeemers” like those who took control of North Carolina government in the post-construction era. He summarizes the factors that led to their takeover: “The continuing traditionalist strain; the complacent Democratic Party; the Redeemer's well-oiled, coordinated organization; out-of-state dark money; the Tea Party; the economy; the loss of business support for progressive policies; Obama; scandals and the lack of organization by public education leaders; and finally, the concept that it couldn't happen here. When you put them all together, it is easy to understand how the battle was lost.”

Leutze mourns the transformation of the former Citizens for Business and Industry organization, which had provided strong support for the state’s public schools and higher education systems. It changed its name in 2007 to the North Carolina Chamber, which focuses on bottom-line business issues.

He says that Barack Obama’s election turned out to be a “gift from an evil fairy” because it mobilized a racist backlash that contributed to the strength of the Redeemers in the 2010 elections.

Leutze’s political history is not a substitute for more objective political histories like those of Rob Christensen’s “The Paradox of Tar Heel Politics” and Tom Eamon’s “The Making of a Southern Democracy.” But his passion, grounded in a love of North Carolina, makes it important reading for those wish to understand our state.

Partisan Democrats might want the book just for the cover, a cartoon illustration by Dwayne Powell with caricatures of Thom Tillis, Phil Berger, Pat McCrory, and Jesse Helms.

 

November 20, 2014 at 10:44 am
Norm Kelly says:

What we have here is NOT a failure to communicate, to paraphrase. What we do have here is a failure to be intellectually honest. What we do have here is a partisan who wants to negatively influence people's better judgement.

'and surely one of the most progressive in the South'. Time for libs to fail to get another clue; I hope. The challenge with the direction that libs were taking us, want to continue to take us, and can't see anything else, is the 'progressive' direction. Progressivism is being rejected by voters ACROSS THE NATION; even in some used-to-be-strongholds of liberalism and progressives. Socialists constantly tell us that there are certain words used by conservatives that are simply code words for being racist. Libs have their own problems, except with libs it's real. They make up stories about conservatives to attempt to paint us with the racist brush. Most, if not all, of the time, the libs are telling lies about racist conservatives. The brush paints libs quite well though. Libs use words to HIDE their meaning. Take 'progressive' for instance. They use 'progressive' because it sounds better than 'socialist'. What's the difference between 'progressive' and 'socialist'? The WORD USED ONLY! The schemes, goals, outcomes of both 'progressives' and 'socialists' are exactly the same. But people sometimes FEEL better being referred to as 'progressive' and we all know that FEELINGS are the most important thing in the life of a dedicated lib.

'out-of-state dark money'. Let's look at some FACTS. I know, if I hadn't lost lib readers prior to this with my post, using facts will drive every one of them away. Libs have been taught to stay away from FACTS because it will prove every one of their beliefs false. But I'll go on anyway. Those FACT thingys show that liberal out-of-state dark money exceeded conservative 'dark money'. So, if libs outspend conservatives with dark money, how does this become a problem for the Republican party. Because socialists do not consider money from their allies as 'out-of-state dark money'. It's money already dedicated to the Socialist Party, so it's not dark; it's not out of state, it's just not in-state YET. When union allies support lib pols, it's not dark money. When Steyer or Soros supports socialist pols in our state, the money isn't DARK because the source is known to the libs. It's not DARK because it's first filtered into the state through some liberal organization before it's spent on the lib pol, so it's not dark cuz it's filtered through a lib ally. Just listen to senile Harry and you'll know that ONLY KOCH MONEY IS DARK and should be made illegal. At some point, libs have got to realize that this LIE will be rejected by voters (legal voters!) also. At some point, libs must realize that unless they manage to change laws, all of their lies will be rejected. Unless socialist pols manage to get their allies on court benches, their schemes and lies will be rejected by the courts also. Shame on libs for continuing to try to lie to citizens, 'the poor' as well as 'the wealthy'!

Perhaps we can forgive the book author to some extent. His background is in 'higher' education, centered in Chapel Hill. All of his words need to be taken with a large, huge, immeasurable grain of salt. 'Leutze's ... background as a popular history teacher at UNC-Chapel Hill' means that he is pre-disposed to be a socialist. Were he NOT looking at EVERYTHING in life through socialist colored glasses, he would not have survived as a teacher in Chapel Hill, let alone be 'popular'. And if his beliefs lean SO FAR LEFT, I fear what the students coming out of his classes believe about the best country in the world. Mind you, used to be the freest country in the world. We used to be a beacon for every other country in the world, an example of what was possible because of freedom and THE RULE OF LAW. What have socialists, like Leutze, brought us? We are rapidly becoming just another wanna-be socialist country where the rule of law is meaningless, 'equality' of misery is universal, unemployment is high, government subsistence programs are bankrupting us, just like every other socialist country around the world. If Leutze is a history teacher, can he show us and/or his students the SUCCESSES of his beloved socialists around the world COMPARED to the successes of the United States? Of course not because that information does NOT exist!

Time for libs to join the rest of us in the real world. Time for libs to stop trying to FORCE their schemes upon the rest of us. It's easy for all you libs to move to just about anywhere in the world and achieve your socialist utopia. But for God's sake, please leave us freedom lovers, and truth lovers, alone! I hope you never actually do join the real world. We need a few socialists in the country so we always know what NOT to do, how NOT to govern. But just a few, cuz obviously too many in positions of authority/control is destructive.

November 20, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Richard Bunce says:

We have a new photo for the polemic screed entry in Wikipedia... this guys book cover.

No surprise his background includes being a State University Administrator...