we are exploring the nature of this phenomenon and its ramifications for Southern politics of that period. At the least, we are confident that our new perspective and study will provide a useful supplement to the conventional version of heroic history. More importantly, we hope that our work will encourage positive debate about the future of democratic representation in the South and America.
Our Theoretical Proposition about Stealth Leadership
We believe that amid all the heroic history of that time, there is a fascinating and useful story of “stealth leadership,” “stealth politics,” and “stealth reconstruction”—a story generally untold and unknown except among the reconstructing participants themselves.
Our proposition is that some leaders quietly broke with Old South ways during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s; we contend that these white officials, in concert with black activists, helped moderate and restructure the Southern political system in quiet biracial practicality. This stealthy white-black coalition’s distinctive working style, skills, and relationships contributed to changing the nature, players, rules, issues, and outcomes of the traditional political game. They calmed Southern political discourse; and they assisted greatly in moving campaigns and governance in positive directions.
In developing our theoretical proposition for use throughout this manuscript, we conceptualized stealth leadership and politics according to the following model.
A Conceptual Model of Stealth Leadership and Politics
Our model defines stealthness—in purely analytical terms—to include Southern white elected officials who traversed five steps, or checkpoints, of stealth service during that period. These stealth leaders: (1) served in white majority areas with significant numbers of black constituents, (2) demonstrated personal orientations toward quiet, practical, biracial politics, (3) successfully waged quiet, practical, biracial electoral campaigns, (4) effectively provided quiet, practical, biracial public service, and (5) substantially helped change the Southern system of elections and governance in moderate-to-progressive direction.
Table 1 (see next page) illustrates our conceptual model by comparing stealth leaders and traditional Southern politicians. It includes the characteristic elements of stealthness, presents each element as a cumulative step in the stealth process, and generally conveys the systemic nature and function of stealth leadership, politics, and reconstruction.
Obviously, this chart is an oversimplified depiction. By design, the model states polar examples of traditionalism and stealthness, whereas actual service was of varied mixtures and degrees. It is difficult to assess real leadership precisely in such terms. Nevertheless, the conceptual model is valuable as a theoretical construct because it neatly portrays our notion that some leaders pursued that new course of politics. Also, the model provides a framework for original research exploring the validity and broader applicability of the stealth thesis. Accordingly, we will study various politicians from that era—through structured examination of settings, orientations, campaigns, service, and impact—and the results will be presented in the second half of this book.
Before starting those examinations, however, we must further define these special leaders and take a look at the “race game” in which they performed their specialized service.
Table 1
Conceptual Model of Stealthness Versus Traditional Southern Politics
| Traditional | Stealth | |
| Politician | Leader | |
| 1. | ||
| Served in a variety | POLITICAL | Served in majority |
| of white-black | SETTING | white areas with significant |
| constituencies. | black populations. | |
| 2. | ||
| Evidenced acceptance | PERSONAL | Evidenced sentiment |
| of the historical system | ORIENTATIONS | and/or plans |
| of white supremacy | for quiet, practical, | |
| and racial segregation | biracial change | |
| in southern politics. | in southern politics. | |
| 3. | ||
| Emphasized conservative | ELECTORAL | Emphasized communitarian |
| messages and openly | CAMPAIGNS | messages and discreet |
| segregated campaigns | dual campaigns to sustain | |
| to maximize white support | sufficient white support | |
| while ignoring | while cautiously addressing | |
| or manipulating blacks. | black interests | |
| 4. | ||
| Promoted conservative | PUBLIC | Promoted moderate policies, |
| policies, segregated operations, | SERVICE | biracialized operations and, |
| and racialized services | deracialized services that | |
| that substantially reflected | reflected substantially fairer | |
| discriminatory governance. | and more equitable governance. | |
| 5. | ||
| Individually continued | SYSTEMIC | Incrementally helped |
| the traditional practice | IMPACT | change the nature |
| of Old South politics. | of southern politics. |
The Historical Necessity for Practical Political Action
Again, a major plank of our thesis is the premise that progress beyond the heroic drama required practical leaders who might attempt a new biracial Southern politics. As we have already noted, the dramatic struggle between heroes and villains had so divided and traumatized Southern politics that our hypothesized reconstruction could come only when those heroes and villains yielded the historical stage to less confrontational types and times.
In fact, the broader environment for sweeping transformation of the South altered substantially and adversely. Radical ideas and actions