Angry White Guys

Thoughtful piece by a very politically correct woman who lived with and loved the kind of redneck—Abe—that supports Trump. Best part in the closing paragraphs here: On the other hand, political scientist…

Thoughtful piece by a very politically correct woman who lived with and loved the kind of redneck—Abe—that supports Trump. Best part in the closing paragraphs here:

On the other hand, political scientist Richard M. Skinner pointed out that many voters don’t choose their candidates based on ideological positions but instead partially because they don’t have an ideological framework.

I’m going to take this one step further and argue that though they might not have a framework, they have a need to rebel and to see themselves as part of a compelling narrative, to cast themselves in some sort of heroic light. I’ve heard this so often from family members and friends who support Trump: “At least he’s shaking things up.”

After I heard this enough times, I started to think about Abe and his flag and his “Scarface” and his Clint Eastwood. Then I saw commentary written by Okla Elliott, a professor and author of “Bernie Sanders: The Essential Guide,” who describes a conversation with an Uber cab driver and Trump supporter. Elliott booked a series of rides with this driver, and they got to talking about politics. As Elliott described Sanders’ positions bit by bit (calmly, without insulting the drivers’ intelligence), the driver was won over to Sanders’ position.

That would seem—by traditional political frameworks—to be impossible. But these conversations are relatively common today, and they happen because some voters are choosing Trump purely out of a need to rebel. That need is real, and it is something to cherish as much as it is to fear. Trump tells a story in which the white worker is a rebellious hero with a mission. Trump seems to give voice to that story, to flip the bird to the establishment—and that is more compelling to voters than any of his ridiculous, racist, dangerous or contradictory political standpoints. I know this from my own experience: The sense that something is wrong starts in the gut. Then you can get lucky and find people to talk to about that desire to rebel, but for the white working-class, finding the left-leaning alternative has become an obstacle course. And they are so often seen as a faceless mass: the racist, hopeless, backward, rural enemy.

Over our years together, Abe and I taught each other many things. I talked about race in this country, and he taught me about the ever-present appeal of the “outlaw” for working-class white males, the only remaining identity refuge after losing economic standing. He’d later shake his head at himself and wince that he ever had a Confederate flag on his wall. I’m glad I didn’t dismiss him out of hand, because he was teachable, as was I. 

Now, we all have a critical opportunity. While it might be satisfying to deride Trump supporters as idiots, racists and rubes, history shows we’d be better served by figuring out how to re-knit the country around the only fable we have left, the “outlaw” in all its incarnations, our version of the kokopeli trickster that refuses to be tamed. Trump’s appeal rests in his appearance of outlandish untameability, and the fact that left-wing rebellion has been erased from public consciousness. Rather than mocking anyone’s stupidity, we should understand the campaign of cultural impoverishment that has led to this frightening and critical moment.

Democrats have to decide which of the following two issues clusters is primary and which secondary. Both are important, but it's a question of emphasis: (1) cultural issues that relate to race, gender, gun control, immigration, or (2) having a probing analysis and remedies regarding how power and wealth work destructively in this country. That’s the choice Dems have now between HRC, who is strong on #1 and very weak on #2, and Bernie who is very strong on #2 and solid on #1.
 
Bernie, IMO, is hitting exactly the right emphatic note if you believe as I do that winning back the so-called Reagan Democrats is necessary for building a broad-based Left coalition. I believe that the more success you have in fixing issues related to #2, the easier it’s going to be for people to evolve regarding #1. Focusing primarily on #1 is politically divisive; focusing primarily on #2 is politically unifying. With unity comes power, and with power comes the ability to actually get something done. Take care of the underlying economic structural issues first, and thorny cultural issues become easier to deal with going forward.
 
Democrats are at a defining moment, and they have to ask themselves what this moment calls for: the bold choice or the safe choice. I would argue that to support HRC over Bernie at this point is like deciding in a close game to punt rather than to go for it on fourth down. In making the safe choice they are IMO settling for eight more years of gridlock and impasse. In making the safe choice, they are ceding all the populist energy to the Right. And so in making the safe choice Democrats will lose an opportunity to take away a significant part of what composes the GOP base right now. The power of the one percent is significantly diminished if it can't hold the angry white vote, and If angry Reagan Democrats are not given a populist choice on the Left, they will choose the guy on the Right. Bernie can win over, not all, but a good chunk of them in a way that HRC just cannot.
 
I don’t know if the Dems’ nominating HRC is enough to give Trump the election in this cycle–probably not. But it's insanity for Democrats, because of their own tribal parochialism, to keep driving angry white people into the arms of the 1%. Democrats keep finding ways to say to them: "Go away; we don’t want you because of your politically incorrect attitudes." This group is only going to get larger going forward as more and more of them become economically marginalized, and it will start attracting “rebel”  blacks and hispanics, because it won’t take long for them to understand that Democrats like HRC don’t really represent their interests either. The idea that the Dems win in the long run because of demographic changes browning America assumes that brown attitudes now will be their attitudes always, and that’s wishful thinking if the fundamental structural problems regarding power and money are not fixed. 
 

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *