case the majority was right. WhennBuddy Roemer, the Democrat-turned-nRepublican incumbent flake, proved tonbe as inept at campaigning as at governingnand came in third, he set up thenEdwards-Duke contest.nNow, not even- National Public Radiontried to present that as a straight-upnmorality play. In bed with the oil andnchemical companies, a gambler andnwomanizer, oft-indicted (though ne’ernconvicted), the former governor is annanachronism, a caricature of the sort ofnpol our nation’s newly puritanical pressncorps eats for lunch. Edwards, whosensense of humor is the best thing aboutnhim, told reporters he wasn’t going tontalk about the Duke’s past “because henmight talk about mine,” and there’s anlot there to talk about. Many Louisianansnhad simply never dreamed of votingnfor Edwards under any circumstances,nand it apparently took them anwhile to realize that voting for the Wiznbecause you couldn’t abide the CajunnPrince would have been like taking anblowtorch to your case of athlete’s foot.nIn some ways the national attentionnmade it worse. The networks andnnewsmagazines, like the horrified Louisiananbusiness community, were almostndaring Louisianans to vote fornDavid Duke, and that was a mistake.nYou don’t dare Southerners to do anythingnyou don’t really want us to do.nFor every Louisianan who was embarrassednby what the readers of the NewnYork Times were thinking, I’m surenanother was tempted to vote for DukenMOVING?nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form with the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to:nSubscription Department, Chronicles,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, Illinoisn61054.nName ‘.nAddressnCitynState . JZ.p.n44/CHRONICLESnjust to show he wasn’t chicken.nBesides, Duke wasn’t exactly wrongnon “the issues.” Most Louisianansnagreed with him on those — at leastnthose issues he talked about. So did lotsnof folks outside Louisiana (40 percentnof Duke’s campaign funds came fromnout of state). For that matter, so did I.nAnd so did many black Southerners, asnthe polls (and I) have been saying fornsome time, and as the Clarence’nThomas hearings could have taught us,nhad we not been distracted by AnitanHill and the Atlanta Braves.n.By the way, how about thosenBraves? They almost avenged thenburning of Atianta, didn’t they? Letnthe spoilsports from the American IndiannMovement take their whining tonthat sanctuary for guilt-ridden liberalsnwith a football team called the Redskins:ndown in Atianta, even JimmynCarter was doing the tomahawk chop.nSo was Hanoi Jane, although she camenup with a more sensitive version, sort ofna tomahawk pat. The Reverend JosephnLowery of the Southern ChristiannLeadership Conference told ESPNnthat he could see the Native Americans’npoint: after all, if the team wasnthe Atianta Negroes and all the fansnwaved littie switchblades, he’d be annoyed.nHe undercut his argument,nthough, when he went on to say thatnfolks wouldn’t like it if the team was thenAtianta Rednecks and fans waved littiennooses. Maybe somebody would findnthat oflFensive, but not rednecks: I knownguys who could really get into that.nAnyway, back to Louisiana. As I wasnsaying, lots of black Southerners arenevery bit as conservative as DavidnDuke was talking, on the issues he wasntalking about. It isn’t just whites whonwant welfare reform, and crime control,nand lower taxes. But it’s remarkablenthat even four percent of Louisiana’snblack voters could bringnthemselves to pull the lever for anformer Grand Wizard, even one whonsays he now talks to Jesus every day.nA lot of white Louisianans weren’tnready to do it either. Newspapers allnover the country got a chuckle out ofnthe bumper stickers that said “Vote fornthe Crook: It’s Important,” but threenout of five voters did just that. True,nDuke got 55 percent of the white votenand no doubt we’ll be hearing that henlost because of black bloc-voting, butnhe would have had fewer white votes ifnnnblacks hadn’t turned out so stronglynagainst him. Either (I) blacks vote theirninterests, or (2) white fear of blacknpower is allayed. Whichever: Dukenloses.nBasically, the numbers suggest thatnEdwards won because he picked upnthree-quarters of the Roemer voters,nmost of them conservative white Republicans,nI’m sure — people who hadnto swallow hard to vote for Edwards,nbut did it, when the chips were down.nPartiy this was snobbery: country-clubnRepublicans don’t want to be governednby a low-life rabble-rouser with a cheapnnose job, a political Jimmy Swaggart.n(True, political life forms don’t comenmuch lower than Edwin Edwards, butnat least he’s amusing.) Partiy, the pollsnshowed, it was also economic concern.nCorruption is expensive, but thenEdwards campaign argued that a Dukenvictory would be even more costiy,nmaking it harder to recruit everythingnfrom factories and tourists to players fornthe LSU football team. At the end,nDuke was reduced to saying, in effect,n”Would not.”nSurely even more important,nthough, was the recognition that somenthings are more important than “issues.”nThings like — oh, for instance,nsin. The American people have alwaysnknown that, even if political junkiesntend to forget it.nYes, Jesus consorted with sinners,nand he may even consort with DavidnDuke. We have to believe that no onenis beyond redemption, and maybenthere are Baptists willing to takenDuke’s word that he’s found it. Thosenof us from less forgiving traditions,nthough, would like more evidence thannjust some testifying.nDuke talked about his “youthfulnindiscretions,” and obviously he hasnlearned discretion somewhere alongnthe way, but that’s not the point. Somen”indiscretions” call for more than regret,nthey call for penance — lots of it.nSome of us think a repentant Nazinought to be off working with lepers ornsomething, not running for governor.nIt looks as if that view is shared by angood many Louisianans. Enough ofnthem, anyway.nJohn Shelton Reed, who writes fromnChapel Hill, North Carolina, is annEpiscopalian and a country-clubnRepublican manque.n