Well...I'm sure that the accusations calling me a racist and/or a small-minded idiot will begin to pile in after writing this...even though at least calling me a racist I believe is far from the truth. Technically, there's a lot of things I disagree or I'm sure I would have disagreed with Helms (I'm only 30, and I started voting about the time of Bush, so I don't think I even had a chance to consider him, and obviously a lot of things he did was before my time entirely, which is why I said "I'm sure I would have, " anyway...). However, I think I should have at least a little bit of credibility for this post, considering I'm a trained historian, been a NC resident for most of my life and started paying attention to crazy things like newspapers and politics at a freakishly young age.

First, a lot of this is going against the charge that North Carolinians were racists or otherwise so stupid and backwards that they voted for Helms. Actually, I would argue most people who voted for Helms did believe in basic civil rights, the original civil rights acts and the basic ideas behind them. Although I am very sure that the true racists did vote for Helms as well because they hated even that. Although by the time Helms started going to Washington, that first era had passed. People knew about Helms' past views on the Civil Rights act, etc, but by that time, basic civil rights were not going anywhere. What many people were questioning was some of the extensions of civil rights, mostly affirmative action, quotas, etc. Many people still see the "white hands" ads as appealing to racist tendencies. It was not necessarily racism, it was affirmative action.

However, I think this is one area where many people are going to plunge the dagger. To a certain extent, some of this I think (maybe, maybe not, this is just a theory) depends how people look at affirmative action, quotas, MLK birthday, etc. I think some see affirmative action and other programs like it as absolute parts directly connected to civil rights, and going against it is purely racist. Exactly the same as going against the civil rights bills themselves. However, some see affirmative action essentially as reverse discrimination, and just as bad as segregation. To them, civil rights is one thing, affirmative action is a whole other thing. At any rate, most people were not as conservative as Helms on civil rights, most people agreed with basic civil rights, just were against some of its extensions that Helms did go against.

There were other issues where Helms was almost used as a bulwark against things going "too liberal." I'm trying to get across to people that North Carolina at that time and now is not some backwards, ultra-conservative backwater many think it is. But there is a conservative element to it. Most people in North Carolina were not and are not now necessarily as conservative as Helms was, but there was a certain idea amongst many people that he was being a certain balance. Unfairly or not, people looked at San Fransisco, they looked at Ted Kennedy, and thought they were too liberal. So they gave them Helms. Even within the state you had a similar tendency. Many of the same people who voted for Helms also voted for Terry Sanford and John Edwards, both democrats, who if anything were fairly more liberal than many average voters.

Although another big thing that a lot of people do not realize, and in a way it is understandable unless you've lived here, and hear almost everybody have at least one story about how Helms directly helped them. He was probably one of the best, if not maybe even the best U.S. Congressmen I've either studied or seen for constituant relations. That alone might be even bigger than anything I mentioned above. If it was something that people needed to be done via the government, and it wasn't getting done like it should, Helms would take care of it. And fast. Another poster I read earlier had a post about one case. Had to do with his father's body that was stuck in Italy (I'm thinking military, I kind of glanced at it mostly, I could be getting details wrong). Anyway, couldn't get anybody within various government departments (that should have taken care of it) to do anything. Got hold of Helm's office, it was taken care of ASAP. My own father (who is not exactly a Helms-type himself) even talked about a dam that was going to be built here in the area that would have been environmentally damaging. They got the situation to Helms, and he killed it in no time. Which also shows something else interesting he did. I have to give him some credit for that, because a republican taking care of an environmental problem like that now days is almost unheard of. And he would never ask for anything back (I know everybody is going to be convinced he got big ol' kickbacks and favors etc. I doubt I can convince people otherwise, although, no, he never asked for anything back). He was also very big on farm issues, things that helped them out, which drew in their votes big time.

To me, I will agree that doesn't completely excuse his personal beliefs. He thought civil rights was a bad thing to do. I definitely believe civil rights was the right thing to do and was really necessary, and the only thing to do by that time. And then there's the whole AIDS mess...but of course later he actually recanted on that. Unfortunately though, he was far from the only leader or person of his age to believe what he did relating to that in the 80's. I'm sure there's more, but I'm trying to keep this post at least a little shorter.

And at the end of the day, people on the outside also see Helms as someone that everybody in NC agreed with and thought was great. Hate to burst many people's bubbles, but Helms could be just as polarizing and contraversial here as anywhere else. Think about why the "white hands" ad aired in the first place. If it was such a cakewalk for a good ol' boy like him to win that election, why even go to any trouble to pull something like that? I'm pretty sure most of his races were contriversial. And could be close.

Holy crap this is a long friggin' post. Ok, I'm stopping now, let the redneck bashing begin!

To me what you have posted is that Helms in many ways was like Hamas when they won in Gaza.

Hamas helped people on a very basic level like getting food and medical supplies. Most of the people in Gaza didn't support Hamas's strict view of Islam but, oh well, that isn't as important as these basics.

I live in CA and trust me even in SF they are NOT all crazy ass libs just like in NC not everyone is as conserative as their politicians.

I will admit I used to hate Helms and thus NC people in general (well really the entire south!), but that POV isn't heathly and it isn't fair. Only 80% are rednecks!

"Only 80% are rednecks!"

Only 68% are white. I'll bet those African American, Hispanic, and Native American rednecks are a barrel of laughs in their white hoods.

Since when did you need to be white to be a redneck?...

Well, since ever, I suppose. But It's not that different to be a (hmm) burgundyneck? Let me think about this one.

So NC is like a third world enclave...yea, that's what I was going for...sure...

I don't think what I said sounds like Hamas...Sounds like you're saying that because I said that Helms was great at constituant relations, because I said that was a big part of why he was re-elected. Well, as far as constituant relations...welcome to politics 101. You're up there to govern and also to represent your constituants. You're supposed to listen to the concerns of your constituants and help them. It's nice to a certain extent that Hamas has figured this out...it's just that 'round these parts (meaning...the western world) it's pretty much standard. Once again, I'm not a big believer in many of Helm's view (I'm a democrat for one), but I have to completely admit that Helms had brains enough to know that taking care of his constituants would help him politically. Some of our senators from the state now should have figured that out by now. If they did, maybe Liddy Dole might not be in such great danger of having to head back to Kansas soon...

Although I have to stress that Helms even though may have been more conservative than a lot of people, including those who voted for him, there were still a decent amount of things people agreed with him on that he could do something about. Many people by the time he went to congress disagreed with him on his views on basic civil rights, but by that time, it was done, he wasn't going to be able to change that. If he was going to be able to change that, I think it might have changed things a lot. However, people who voted for him generally agreed with him on opposing affirmative action and some of the programs that was part of extending the civil rights act. That he could do something about. I would also add that they also agreed with him on a number of other things he was big on. Limited government, lower taxes, opposing giving public money to the arts (that one was certainly contriversial though) were also other ones. All big '80's issues, don't care where you were.

I may have not stressed that enough in the earlier post, making my view sound like it was all about the constituant relations...but this is what happens when I try to write a friggin disortation on a complex subject that would make a good-sized book (seems like I always do that when posting here...it's a habit, don't know why). Of course, that whole post was kind of a reaction post to a number of posters who speculated on how someone who openly opposed the civil rights acts could be elected to the senate, with the conclusion that North Carolinians are racist. It's just more complicated than that. That's a big part of what I was trying to get across.

Anway, to get back to Helms=Hamas, it's not exactly like he just did things for people and they just voted him in just because of that. I will still maintain that consituant relations were a big part of his success, but many of his general political views was a reason as well.

And of course, once again, I cannot stress enough that it's not like a Helms election was just a case of everybody votes for the good ol' boy. He wasn't the only game in town. It isn't like Hamas, who unfortuantly because of Fatah's weaknesses did make Hamas about the only game in town. And I will stress again that Helms didn't necessarily represent the beliefs of everybody. The Helms elections are probably some of the most contentious races in modern times. Many times they were close, and they were usually contraversial.

I think I'm also saying this to address the quote of "North Carolinians are not as conservative as their politicians." Once again, hate to burst people's bubbles, but not all our elected politicians are that conservative. Look up Gov/Sen Terry Sanford. Probably was the reason JFK won NC in '60. Or Gov Jim Hunt, or Sen John Edwards. All of whom were democrats and at least fairly liberal on most issues. Then you look at the fact that the state democratic party is still the dominant party in NC. Nope, I'm not talking about the Dixiecrats, they're all republican now. I'm talking about the democrats, that of Terry Sanford and Jim Hunt.

Also, certainly I'm not saying that everybody in SF is necessarily rabid left liberal. However, it was and still is to a certain extent more liberal than most places in North Carolina, which as I said in the earlier post, unfairly or not, that perception was (still sometimes is) a political factor you can't completely ignore.