Edsall begins by talking about how Karl Rove grew up in a broken, miserable family, and from that
...understood the longing of many Americans for a traditional nuclear family and a sense of social order. He grasped the values crisis brought on by the sociocultural revolution of the '60s and '70s because he himself had lived its worst consequences. And--like previous Republican strategists, including Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Charlie Black, and Lee Atwater--he realized that these sentiments, however crass they sounded to the ears of liberals, held appeal to many voters and could therefore be harnessed to his party's advantage.
Stop right there: "crass"? The fact that the "longing of many Americans for a traditional nuclear family and a sense of social order" sounds crass to liberal ears tells us a very great deal about why so many voters reject liberalism. But see, the stoutly liberal Edsall understands this, which is why he goes on to say that the philosophical edifice upon which the modern conservative political movement is built on is still quite strong, and that "Whatever happens this November, no one should be fooled: The Democrats are still in deep trouble."
Edsall links basic GOP themes -- small government, religious enthusiasm, affirmative action, cultural populism -- to George Wallace, as if the ideas themselves were tainted because a racist demagogue made political hay from them. Edsall goes on to say -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that believe it or not, Republicans have managed to make people think that all this cultural breakdown comes from the institutionalization of liberalism, and people actually vote according to that vision. Reading the piece as a social conservative, it's almost amusing to see Edsall struggling to understand how on earth anyone could believe that liberals, with the best of intentions, misunderstand human nature, and have therefore fomented laws, policies and cultural developments that many of us crass simpletons who prefer stable family life and social order deplore.
(You know, of course, that I think conservatives ignore how the GOP's free-market-uber-alles individualism harms traditional values and society, but let's leave that aside for now.)
Here's a killer graf from Edsall:
Many Democrats--and writers such as Thomas Frank--have called for the party to reconnect with the white, working-class, male voters it has lost over the decades. The problem with this call to populism is that the party's most influential wing is not populist; it is elitist--affluent, well educated, urban, indifferent (or hostile) to organized religion, and, on the controversial social issues of abortion and gay marriage, well to the left of the general public. The values of this elite tend to prevail in party debates and in the crafting of Democratic platforms. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union--and himself an Ivy League graduate--recently said that the perception of Democrats as "Volvo-driving, latte-drinking, Chardonnay-sipping, Northeast, Harvard- and Yale-educated liberals" isn't a perception at all, but rather "the reality. That is who people see as leading the Democratic Party. There's no authenticity; they don't look like them. People are not voting against their interests; they're looking for someone to represent their interests."
That's what Andrew Sullivan would call an "Yglesias Award Nominee": someone not afraid of speaking a difficult truth to his own side. It gets better:
Once characterized mainly by the economic split of the Great Depression--a split that played to the Democrats' advantage for the better part of a generation--the parties now divide differently. Put simply, the Democratic Party has become the political arm of the subdominant, while the GOP is home to the dominant groups in American life.
In other words, Democrats and liberals are out of touch with most people in this country. Could it be that Edsall had to coat that bitter nougat in the sweet chocolaty coating of condescension to get that message down liberal gullets? But there's an unpleasant truth for the right to accept too:
In other words, in the culture and the workplace, the left's core constituencies have largely won. As a result, for a decade or more, their goal has mostly been to consolidate gains rather than to break significant new ground. Conservatives, on the other hand, are losing the culture wars, and they know it. This has only made them fight harder--and, ironically, it has strengthened the political party to which they belong.
I think Edsall's really onto something here. We don't vote Republican because we think we can turn this cultural slide around; we vote Republican to slow the rate of descent. We are losing the culture wars, and voting Republican is a feeble defensive action. And besides, the alternative is so much worse. The incomptence of the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress has soured some conservatives (like me), but it hasn't made liberals of us. And won't. So when Edsall concludes that even if the Republicans lose this fall, the Democrats are in such disarray that their victory will only be temporary, I believe him. But in the end, what good will GOP victories stretched out until the end of time do for social conservatism? Why is it that despite the GOP's dominance of US politics, conservatives continue to lose the culture war?
Claes Ryn says that's because American conservatives have been too concerned with politics, and not concerned enough with culture.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hey, me too -- the Family Tall lives in a flat much smaller than we can afford, and we ditched our car years ago (it's easier to do this here in Hong Kong). But do three of us in this thread a movement make?
I fear that Chuck's statement, although a bit over-sweeping, is more or less correct. American culture really does seem to me to have a great deal to do with comfort. This may be why people from cultures that enjoy comfort, but don't value it as highly -- like the East Asians SiliconValleySteve has mentioned -- do so very well when they become a part of a 'comfort culture'. It's easy to save money when you are willing to forego the highest possible level of comfort you can afford. I'm witness to the opposite effect, i.e. many western expats here in Hong Kong going crazy spending money to try to recreate the level of comfort they're used to in their home countries.>
. . . No one is going to sacrifice their happiness for someone else's idea of a greater good . . .
It is not a "sacrifice" if one is forced to give something up. Sadly, in far too much of the world, people live in less comfort than here (US) not from their own choice, or their own sacrifice for what they consider to be a greater Good, but because of what an autocrat or worse (the someone else) considers to be a greater good -- typically the autocrat's own comfort.
You want to live in a smaller house than you can afford? Fine, do so. You'd rather work harder and be more comfortable? Fine, do so. You'd rather bike than drive to work (I would, if I didn't have to risk my life to do it)? Fine, do so. That's what freedom gives us.
But spare me the rants about how our culture is decadent because some want to build big new houses. Our culture is plenty decadent, true, but in worse ways than "comfort".>
Are you sitting down, M_David? You're starting to make sense to me there.
It's not that I agree with you any more than I did before. It's that your definitional statements are making connections to things I recognize.
I'm going to let Scott Lahti's long post speak for me, for the most part. One thing I wish to emphasize in my own way is in response to Edsall's text:
...the party's most influential wing is not populist; it is elitist--affluent, well educated, urban, indifferent (or hostile) to organized religion [to religious diversity], and, on the controversial social issues of abortion and gay marriage, well to the left [right] of the general public. The values of this elite tend to prevail in party debates and in the crafting of Democratic [Republican] platforms.
It's amazing, with the insertion of a choice at each bracketed word or phrase, that we are indicting both primary political parties. We, the grunts in the trenches, are truly being hoist by our own leaders.
If I ever get around to stablizing the major aspects of my life (hah!!), I'm going to start a political party. It'll be local, it'll find ways to get its message out other than with buckets full of money, and it'll thumb its noses at the establishment elite's hypocritical attempt to paint itself as servants of the people.
Yeah, that's the ticket. ;)>
"he realized that these sentiments, however crass they sounded to the ears of liberals, held appeal to many voters"
"that this ... sounds crass to liberal ears tells us a very great deal about why so many voters reject liberalism"
This is one thing I can't stand: the generalization from what one guy says to what all liberals believe is a straw man that too many conservatives use. Where would Limbaugh and his ilk be if they didn't have an occasional nut case to quote as the voice of "all liberals"? I'm disappointed to see Rod use it.
And since family values are so great, why do so many want to deny them to a large segment of the population?>
Bush has already made Liberals out of you, and you surprise me by not seeing it. His Administration certainly is "spend and spend" (true, not tax and tax, but local state and county and city governments make it up by taxing us all the more; look at your total tax bill and weep), more than any other known government, putting your childrens' children in debt; and "create big government", again more than any before. Those are the Liberal threats and they have all come true on Bush's watch. "Slow descent" is a misnomer; if you don't vote Democratic this time around, you will see even more of the same "spend and spend" and "create big government" as well as the continued incompetance and cronyism that has turned Washington into a sty of pigs, all feeding at the trough, spending like you wouldn't believe on Homeland Security (which hasn't brought us security) and Defense (which hasn't made us safer). No, I don't think the Democrats will "save" us this time around, but the will act as the necessary balance to this unending march to Liberalism and Incompetance. The Democrats will accomplish the "slowed descent"; in the long run they can be as corrupt and stupid; but in the short run they offer the only alternative to the Madness that is King George.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.