On his way out the door, Gabriel Winant asks a good question: Why do white working-class males vote against their own interests? The same conundrum existed in the Confederate states more than a century ago: Why did non-slave owning whites go to their deaths between 1861-1865 in defense of slavery and slave property which they did not (and could not realistically hope to) own? The answer is found in skin-color: the Dumbos are the white man's party. For white working class males and for their yeoman farmer brethren in the Confederacy, skin color has trumped everything else. Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) apologized to BP because the POTUS (44) was uppity to white men (Big Oil). If this is (fair & balanced) irrationality, so be it.
PS: Gabriel Winant has appeared in this blog here, here, and here.
PPS: Use the hyperlinks below to hip-hop through this blog double feature.
[Vannevar Bush Hyperlink — Bracketed Numbers — Directory]
[1] Why White Working-Class Males Are Dumbos
[2] Gabriel's Goodbye
[1]—Back To Directory
[x Salon]
How Does Joe Barton's GOP Ever Win?
By Gabriel Winant
Tag Cloud of the following article
When U.S. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) used his official position to grovel before a multinational corporation, he became the perfect emblem of the modern Republican Party. There's no version of small-government principle that suggests that private interests of any kind should be able to pass the bill off to the public for damage they do. You can only think that if your idea of defending the free market has been warped into wanting to give free money away to business; that's what it would mean to let BP off the hook.
Barton has apologized by now, under pressure from his party. But it's too late: This was what Mickey Kaus, the former blogger and defeated Senate candidate, calls a Category II Kinsley gaffe, in which a politician says something he means, but is embarrassed by. As Joan Walsh pointed out yesterday, the impulse to shield BP from responsibility is pretty widespread on the right.
How is a party that is the devoted servant of corporate power still not only viable, but reliably able to win large chunks of the working-class vote? The right hand of the GOP plays a waltz for the party's dance with big business; the left hand beats out a populist rhythm. Somehow, the two don’t cancel each other out. How can this be?
To try to understand this, we’ve got to go down a path that'll take us pretty far from Joe Barton.
The classic treatment given to this question in the modern popular press comes from Thomas Frank. In his [2004] book What’s the Matter With Kansas? [film clip here] Frank argued that the GOP's corporate elite — the Bartons — spent the second half of the 20th century using social issues to misdirect populist anger. It's more or less an argument for false consciousness, the outmoded but attractively simple idea that working people have failed to recognize that they're locked in class conflict with their exploiters, and instead have come to believe in some other, false story of how society works. "Kansas" seems to have gained fairly widespread acceptance among mainstream, cosmopolitan liberals looking to diagnose the GOP's success with the white working class as some kind of ailment. It's the argument Barack Obama dug up when he made his infamous "cling to guns and religion" comment. (When it comes to Frank's thesis, or the broader question, we are in particular talking about the white working class, and especially, the white male working class. Women and African-Americans have, for obvious reasons, been less tempted to identify with the powerful.)
Frank doesn’t say this in his book, but he was joining a rich and long-standing debate about this issue in history, philosophy and sociology. You could fill up a library with books on the question of working-class conservatism. And from all that writing, you'd find a good amount of criticism of Frank's argument.
One problem with "Kansas" is that it casts the working-class Republican voter purely as a victim. In doing this, Frank fails to ask how the political terrain might look to the people they pity, and what kind of action those people might be taking to help shape it.
The question to ask here if you are a white member of the working class — the demographic type around whom this debate swirls — is what can you do to gain more control over your life? Because that’s what politics is: people getting organized, or not, to control their lives. What are the weapons of this weak group?
You can't form a union, most of the time. The combination of the global labor market, hostile labor law, implacable corporate opposition, and a desiccated union movement more or less rule that out. And why should you want to, really? Labor organizing incurs significant risks. Meanwhile, the union movement, for all of its value, remains bureaucratic and unimaginative, and has consistently failed to address the aspirations and desires of American workers.
Likewise, the Democratic Party won't commit to a real relationship. Instead, it insists on the unconvincing proposition that workers can share it with business and professionals, and still get their needs met.
So that leaves you without tools to forthrightly conduct class politics in public. You've got no hope, and it seems almost foolish to dare to try. What's left? Well, if you're white, you can fall back on racism; if you're a man, you can oppose gender equality. From one angle, the idea of social equality, whether along racial or gender lines, looks like a modern fabrication — just one more thing eating away at what’s precious and important. High capitalism does nothing if it doesn't throw ancient values and habits up in the air like confetti, and make a mockery of the traditions of village, church and tribe. (That "ancient traditions" have themselves often been conditioned by American capitalism is of course also true. The more-or-less modern idea of "race" was invented to make slavery possible, but is felt no less genuinely for that. Nor has the origin of the idea of race limited in any way how we extravagantly reproduce it, year after year.)
It's uncomfortable to think this way about egalitarian movements like feminism and the pursuit of racial equality. Obviously, nobody on the left should renounce gender equality or civil rights just because these ideas have produced enmity among a certain group that we might otherwise find sympathetic. But we also shouldn't allow ourselves to slip into condescension, to imagine that people are just bigots and fools, tricked into opposing their own self-interest. They are participants in politics just like everyone else. Even the citizen who doesn't vote at all is saying something about politics. The fact that some methods of political participation don't make sense to liberals doesn’t mean that they don't make sense at all.
By the way, this doesn’t exactly describe the Tea Party movement, which is less a workers' populist movement than it is a middle-class one. Tea Partiers appear to be mainly small-business people and the like — petty bourgeois, as academics say. There's frankly little use in agonizing over "why they hate us." The resentments of the passed-by middle class have always fueled the most right-wing politics in modern democracies. If you go and read a good history of the second Ku Klux Klan – the 1920s movement – you'll be amazed at how familiar much of the rhetoric is. But spare some sympathy, even for Glenn Beck's most devoted followers. The democracy of Goldman Sachs and Wal-Mart is a tough place for the community bank and local hardware store.
This is a highly abbreviated summary of some of the issues around the weird dual nature of American conservatism. And as I warned, we're awfully far now from Barton and BP. But it looks now like the GOP is set for some significant comeback in November. There's not a bad chance that Barton will end up as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And if he does, don’t groan about those idiot voters out in Texas and Kansas. Working-class voters don’t belong to the Democrats. They have a logic all their own, and liberals can only afford to ignore that for so long before, inevitably, it always finds a way to catch up with them, and sweep in corporate flunkies like Barton along with it. Ω
_______________________________________________________
[2]—Back To Directory
[x Salon]
It's Time To Get Going
By Gabriel Winant
Tag Cloud of the following article
Hi readers,
Today (6/18/2010) is my last day in this gig. It's time for me, sadly, to shove off.
I lucked into this job in the first place at a time when nothing like it was supposed to exist anymore. When casting around for work in New York a couple years ago, I'd never have guessed that I might have this kind of good fortune. Since then, I've written hundreds of posts and features, and it's been a privilege, for which I owe a huge debt to everyone at Salon who gave me more leeway than I probably deserved.
It's an amazing publication, committed all at once to serious news reporting, honest and hard-hitting opinion, the best popular feminist writing around, voluminous, brilliant books coverage, incisive and witty culture critics and a fantastic new food section. (Seriously, the number of these recipes I’ve used...) I could go on, but you can just click around for yourself. To manage all that while being independent, intimately involved with its readership, and, above all, good-humored makes this place a true treasure.
I'm leaving, but the truth is, you won’t be all the way rid of me just yet. This fall, I'll be starting a PhD in American history. (I've been doing a master’s this year, and I imagine some readers have spotted the influence of my graduate work show up in my writing already.) A doctoral program is going to take up the better part of the time I can now give to Salon. But the folks here have generously offered to have me back to write more explicitly historically-informed commentary in the fall. I'll do my solid best to bring important pieces of the past to bear on the present, and not to bore you to tears in the process.
For now, though, I'm going to go spend some time in California walking my dog, reading my books and playing my banjo — that kind of stuff. I'll miss you guys, and hopefully see you again pretty soon. I hope you've liked what I've had to say. I've certainly appreciated the chance to say it. Ω
[Gabriel Winant is a freelance writer and graduate student, currently living in the United Kingdom. Winant was an editorial assistant at Salon.]
Copyright © 2010 Salon Media Group, Inc.
Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at sapper.blogspot.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Copyright © 2010 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves
No comments:
Post a Comment
☛ STOP!!! Read the following BEFORE posting a Comment!
Include your e-mail address with your comment or your comment will be deleted by default. Your e-mail address will be DELETED before the comment is posted to this blog. Comments to entries in this blog are moderated by the blogger. Violators of this rule can KMA (Kiss My A-Double-Crooked-Letter) as this blogger's late maternal grandmother would say. No e-mail address (to be verified AND then deleted by the blogger) within the comment, no posting. That is the (fair & balanced) rule for comments to this blog.