When Karl Rove whispered in Junior’s ear a few years ago “let’s run for president”, he did so with a particularly juicy strategy: recast the melting pot as a hyper-realized fragmentation set to go to war. This strategy was much more subtle in 1994 as George W. Bush ran for governor and in his reelection campaign in 1998 (yes, the one in which he promised not to run for president in 2000). We saw it in full-bloom, however, in the 2000 and 2004 elections.
This story has been well-covered, but hardly examined. Just take a second to think about it. Rove’s strategy was to cast southern and western white men with little education and blue-collar jobs as “the real America”. The idea was that those people that live in cities (69% of the population) are fakers. Minorities and women have evil agendas and are stealing the white man’s rightful place as king. Education leads you to the dangerous place in which liberalism sounds pretty good. White men unite! We must take back our country. This was the ideology in 2000’s “Who would you rather drink a beer with?” [preposition placement intentional] and the NASCAR dad phenomenon. Both were euphemisms for southern, uneducated white men.
It was revised in 2004 to include women: remember the SUV-driving suburban soccer mom that was the target? However, with the Islamo-fear machine and the culture war rhetoric, these further polarizations' true intent was to encourage white men to respond in a particular way.
So here it was, in late 2007, and the Republicans trot out the frame with all of their candidates flopping over each other in an attempt to seem more racist, angry, and vile than the sitting president: “I’ll keep Gitmo.”, “Well, I’ll double it!”, “Hey, I’ll triple it!”: and then at some point, it dawns on them: we’re taking on a white woman or a black man. If we use our typical frame, people might actually see through it! We’ll have to make it a little more subtle.
But really, there was no need: the media did it for them. Raise your hand if you have heard the following statement from any number of network newscasts or read it in the paper somewhere: “Sen. Barack Obama has a white working-class male problem”. No need to reference NASCAR dads, no need to talk about the “real” America: the media names the frame for them.
But here’s the real question and the underlying concept: Isn’t the white working-class male a small part of the electorate? If Obama wins significant majorities of blacks (he will), women (likely), Hispanics (looking good), union workers (very solid), the proverbial ‘middle class’ voter (so far, so good), and even the wealthy (not out of the question!), why should he even bother taking a single white, working-class male? Is that a notoriously powerful demographic collectively?
Secondly, “working-class” happens to be a strange euphemism. It seems to imply labor that is traditionally middle class (manufacturing and agro-business) with lower-class pay and status. It isn’t referencing the working poor that work 40-60 hours a week at minimum wage (a large percentage of our work force), but at the same time doesn’t seem to refer to labor unions or skilled tradespersons. Perhaps it serves only as a proverbial representation: that auto mechanic that works on the corner with his four kids and has to pay medical insurance out of his pocket and all that he asks of his country is a little bit more of his paycheck in his pocket so that he can make ends meet. Oh, and bomb the terrorists: he hates those guys.
Isn’t this mercurial concept of “working-class” not another way to say poor redneck? Isn’t it another way to suggest that Barack Obama isn’t speaking for America if he’s got pretty much everyone on his side, just not the one demographic that matters: those poor white men? Isn’t it another way of saying that every demographic of society is less important than the southern white guy—the “real” American? Isn’t this the way of saying that Obama supports the terrorists if he doesn’t wear a flag pin, while Sen. John McCain’s wardrobe doesn’t matter? Isn’t this just another way of excusing overt racism?
So here it is. We have a black presidential candidate against a white one. One is in his prime and the other is significantly past his. One has spent the past year preparing and setting up a historic campaign with incredible infrastructure and planning and the other has spent the past year (or three) changing his position on every fundamental issue and reassuring his base that he’s one of them. Both claimed to be above traditional politics (only one of them actually is) and yet we are still talking about a small cross-section of America: the “working-class white male” as if there’s a chieftain that has to ‘sign off’ on Obama! As if white men get together in meetings to talk about whom they are going to endorse. Of course I’m not allowed to go because I went to college—only the uneducated are allowed. I don’t get to count in the white vote—I’m an elite. Plus, I live in a city of over 100,000, so I’m not a rural voter, so that’s a second strike against me—a second way I don’t count.
I thought about getting some statistics, poring through the census and finding numbers based on race and education, and it dawned on me: I don’t actually need them. This concept is that obvious. The middle class is a concept defined by percentage: the middle 50%. According to the amorphous and changing definition of working-class, it excludes the top 75%, and since it isn’t really about “the poor”, then we can discount the bottom 25%.
Or let’s look at it another way. Whites make up something like 55% of the population of the United States. Roughly half of those whites are women, meaning all white men make up about a quarter of the population. Again, not a majority by any stretch. Now exclude those with a college education and/or live in cities and you approximate a seemingly insignificant demographic group.
And yet, that demographic group gets a veto power in the election? Why this elevated status? Why does Obama’s candidacy require this support at all? The only minorities McCain has attempted to win over are Hispanics and women, both of whose support are compromised by his track record and his current behavior. Doesn’t McCain need universal endorsement, as Obama appears to, or are uneducated white men the “trump” in the discussion? Does McCain win the “trick” by getting the seeming endorsement of white men, while losing the vote of women, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities? And what about other designations, which include labor and management? McCain is down 2-to-1 in active military personel, many of which come from this demographic that is McCain's "wheelehouse".
How is this not racism? Why aren’t we attacking the network news for this overt racism, for framing the discussion in this way? Why aren’t we calling for a campaign that, just once, doesn’t hold the southern, uneducated white man as the ‘real’ American, and instead embraces the incredible diversity of the American electorate? Oh, that’s right. Now we’re wondering how Jews in Florida are going to vote. For a second there, I thought we had a shot to reverse this racist trend.
This story has been well-covered, but hardly examined. Just take a second to think about it. Rove’s strategy was to cast southern and western white men with little education and blue-collar jobs as “the real America”. The idea was that those people that live in cities (69% of the population) are fakers. Minorities and women have evil agendas and are stealing the white man’s rightful place as king. Education leads you to the dangerous place in which liberalism sounds pretty good. White men unite! We must take back our country. This was the ideology in 2000’s “Who would you rather drink a beer with?” [preposition placement intentional] and the NASCAR dad phenomenon. Both were euphemisms for southern, uneducated white men.
It was revised in 2004 to include women: remember the SUV-driving suburban soccer mom that was the target? However, with the Islamo-fear machine and the culture war rhetoric, these further polarizations' true intent was to encourage white men to respond in a particular way.
So here it was, in late 2007, and the Republicans trot out the frame with all of their candidates flopping over each other in an attempt to seem more racist, angry, and vile than the sitting president: “I’ll keep Gitmo.”, “Well, I’ll double it!”, “Hey, I’ll triple it!”: and then at some point, it dawns on them: we’re taking on a white woman or a black man. If we use our typical frame, people might actually see through it! We’ll have to make it a little more subtle.
But really, there was no need: the media did it for them. Raise your hand if you have heard the following statement from any number of network newscasts or read it in the paper somewhere: “Sen. Barack Obama has a white working-class male problem”. No need to reference NASCAR dads, no need to talk about the “real” America: the media names the frame for them.
But here’s the real question and the underlying concept: Isn’t the white working-class male a small part of the electorate? If Obama wins significant majorities of blacks (he will), women (likely), Hispanics (looking good), union workers (very solid), the proverbial ‘middle class’ voter (so far, so good), and even the wealthy (not out of the question!), why should he even bother taking a single white, working-class male? Is that a notoriously powerful demographic collectively?
Secondly, “working-class” happens to be a strange euphemism. It seems to imply labor that is traditionally middle class (manufacturing and agro-business) with lower-class pay and status. It isn’t referencing the working poor that work 40-60 hours a week at minimum wage (a large percentage of our work force), but at the same time doesn’t seem to refer to labor unions or skilled tradespersons. Perhaps it serves only as a proverbial representation: that auto mechanic that works on the corner with his four kids and has to pay medical insurance out of his pocket and all that he asks of his country is a little bit more of his paycheck in his pocket so that he can make ends meet. Oh, and bomb the terrorists: he hates those guys.
Isn’t this mercurial concept of “working-class” not another way to say poor redneck? Isn’t it another way to suggest that Barack Obama isn’t speaking for America if he’s got pretty much everyone on his side, just not the one demographic that matters: those poor white men? Isn’t it another way of saying that every demographic of society is less important than the southern white guy—the “real” American? Isn’t this the way of saying that Obama supports the terrorists if he doesn’t wear a flag pin, while Sen. John McCain’s wardrobe doesn’t matter? Isn’t this just another way of excusing overt racism?
So here it is. We have a black presidential candidate against a white one. One is in his prime and the other is significantly past his. One has spent the past year preparing and setting up a historic campaign with incredible infrastructure and planning and the other has spent the past year (or three) changing his position on every fundamental issue and reassuring his base that he’s one of them. Both claimed to be above traditional politics (only one of them actually is) and yet we are still talking about a small cross-section of America: the “working-class white male” as if there’s a chieftain that has to ‘sign off’ on Obama! As if white men get together in meetings to talk about whom they are going to endorse. Of course I’m not allowed to go because I went to college—only the uneducated are allowed. I don’t get to count in the white vote—I’m an elite. Plus, I live in a city of over 100,000, so I’m not a rural voter, so that’s a second strike against me—a second way I don’t count.
I thought about getting some statistics, poring through the census and finding numbers based on race and education, and it dawned on me: I don’t actually need them. This concept is that obvious. The middle class is a concept defined by percentage: the middle 50%. According to the amorphous and changing definition of working-class, it excludes the top 75%, and since it isn’t really about “the poor”, then we can discount the bottom 25%.
Or let’s look at it another way. Whites make up something like 55% of the population of the United States. Roughly half of those whites are women, meaning all white men make up about a quarter of the population. Again, not a majority by any stretch. Now exclude those with a college education and/or live in cities and you approximate a seemingly insignificant demographic group.
And yet, that demographic group gets a veto power in the election? Why this elevated status? Why does Obama’s candidacy require this support at all? The only minorities McCain has attempted to win over are Hispanics and women, both of whose support are compromised by his track record and his current behavior. Doesn’t McCain need universal endorsement, as Obama appears to, or are uneducated white men the “trump” in the discussion? Does McCain win the “trick” by getting the seeming endorsement of white men, while losing the vote of women, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities? And what about other designations, which include labor and management? McCain is down 2-to-1 in active military personel, many of which come from this demographic that is McCain's "wheelehouse".
How is this not racism? Why aren’t we attacking the network news for this overt racism, for framing the discussion in this way? Why aren’t we calling for a campaign that, just once, doesn’t hold the southern, uneducated white man as the ‘real’ American, and instead embraces the incredible diversity of the American electorate? Oh, that’s right. Now we’re wondering how Jews in Florida are going to vote. For a second there, I thought we had a shot to reverse this racist trend.
1 comment:
Thank you for putting a voice to the "liberal Christian". To often I hear that you can not be liberal and a Christian. As if being a card carrying Republican is a necessity for Salvation. As an educated Christian woman I find it offensive that I must either be labeled a "Republican Soccer Mom" or a "Radical Feminist" or that other nasty word that is so often used to describe women with their own opinions. Unfortunately there appears to be no end in sight to racisim and sexism in the political arena.
Post a Comment