I was counting down the minutes until I heard something like this from one of my friends. It falls to Julian, who says:
Enough already. Can we please stop pretending that failure to properly appreciate the wisdom of parochial, tribalist hicks (and I mean that in a geographically neutral sense) is some kind of moral failing? Yes, Bush crafted a message that was “simple and appealing to a huge mass of voting Americans.” That’s what demagoguery is.
Will’s post is ultimately no less condescending than the attitude he criticizes, attributing Bush’s support less to substantive (if loathesome) policy agreement from the base, and more to his apparent embodiment of the spirit of the Volk. That may be the case, but if anything, it makes his base look worse, not better. As Penn Jillette says (roughly) in the most recent issue of Reason, sometimes respecting someone means saying “you’re a fucking idiot,” because then you’re at least taking their disagreement seriously. A difference over the morality of stem cell research, say, is at least in principle a substantive topic you can argue about. Disagreement that stems from one party’s being enmeshed in some adolescent narrative about the True Spirit of America forecloses that possibility, because it amounts to concluding that your opponents are hypnotized, and that the best hope is to hypnotize them better. Maybe that’s the case, but don’t tell me it’s less condescending.
Sure, sure Julian. Though I’m not sure you’d know a parochial, tribalist hick if one punched you in the face. Can you tell the difference between a Christian conservative MBA executive from Wichita and a toothless snake-handling trailer-dwelling Jesus freak, or do they look the same to you–all parochial, tribalist hicks–from such great heights? I really just don’t see the point of this kind of talk, or the point of patting ourselves on our weak backs for being so well devoted to our comparative advantages.
In the event of a Kerry victory would we be sure to point out that his core included millions of parochial, tribalist, whatever-the-urban-correlate-of-”hicks”-is roused by “your children will starve in the streets/your jobs will vanish to Bangalore” rhetoric? Democrats, it can be shocking to remember, do not mainly depend on cosmopolitan newspaper columnists and college professors, and, no, we would not point it out. So why the especially invidious desription of the Christian Bush voter? Cultural bigotry? Northeastern xenophobia? Or is this a just a good hard truth that’s really worth shouting from the rooftops? Each of us is no doubt jealous of our cultural identity, and we each need our “other,” I suppose, and to band together with our spiritual compatriots in trying times, but we don’t have to be fatuous about it.
Sad as it may be to we heroes of reason, people do not think in a begriffsschrift, and it is pure silliness to imagine elections being won or lost on the basis of substantive debates about issues like stem cell research. Del Monte sells pineapple, Honda sells more Civics, by tapping into the spirit of the Volk and the Zeit and so forth, and candidates win elections the same way. There are whole companies in our modern day technologically advanced capitalist society devoted to the dark arts of geist-plumbing, and we don’t get in huff about Goebbelsian demagoguery–at least we libertarians don’t–when Apple starts moving beaucoup iPods due to savvy psychographic research.
It is not condescending to point out that human beings are human beings–coalitional, mythologizing, risk averse–unless one is in the grip of some kind of unreasonable expectation to the contrary. People take “adolescent” narratives about their origins, histories, coalitions and so forth dead serious, and implying that it’s dirty to pander to this kind of thing is not a serious point as much as it is a complaint against the evolved constitution of human beings. (Is there, in someone or other’s mind, an adolescent narrative of Will Wilkinson? Of Julian Sanchez? Of course, no.)
My point, which I guess wasn’t clear, is not that there is a choice between substantive policy agreement and embodiment of the volkgeist. My point is that substantive policy agreement is driven by coalitional identification. People come to agree with Bush (or Kerry or anybody), and repeat his arguments, because they see him as one of them. That is, as far as I can tell, the way it works, our Cartesian rationalist hopes notwithstanding. Bush did a good job of it, and it really is worth understanding just what it is that he did.
I don’t know about moral failings, but it sure is a prudential failing to refuse to connect with and understand the people one must convince if one hopes to make ideological and social progress. I wasn’t saying agree, applaud, or affirm. Just muster enough sympathy, charity and abstract respect to enable minimal comprehension. Our opponents, on whatever side, are not hypnotized any more than we are. They think and act in a framework of value and identity different from, and in some ways better and worse than, ours. All I was saying was: we either get inside that framework and try to find points of leverage or our masters will rule us as they see fit, without the benefit of our wise counsel.
Oh my God! I love how much play Kansas (the state I went to college in and where my parents grew up) is getting at the moment! Will, you mention Wichita in this post. I just saw Joe Scarborough mention Topeka, KS when he was talking about the red state v. blue state issue. And last but not least, the Jayhawks men’s basketball team is ranked #1 in the preseason coaches poll. Nice. Very nice.
Also, I’ve been thinking over the last couple of days about what kind of country I’d rather live in, a socialist country where gays can get married, drug laws are more lenient, the culture is basically secular or a country where those things are illegal and the culture is pretty religious but the free market is allowed to operate in most other ways.
I can’t decide at the moment. But right this second I’m leaning towards prefering the socialist situation…
As much as I agree with some of the fear & loathing that’s being espoused regarding certain elements of the evangelical belief system, why not focus on something we can actually change? The god-squaders sure aren’t going to love god any less in 4 years and there will be a bunch more of them by then too (no contraceptives you know).
We have to vastly improve the “messenger” and better communicate “the message”. Bad war, bad deficit, bad environment, bad healthcare and yet Kerry just didn’t have what it takes to convince Americans he would be a better choice. That’s pretty bad in and of itself. I think many, if not most of us on the left, knew we were voting more “against Bush” than “for Kerry”. He was an awful candidate, had no clear and consistent position on many of the issues, had a woeful inability to connect with the public in a meaningful way and had no “message discipline” whatsoever for the convoluted message he did have. On top of that, his overall campaign was so poorly run you’d have thought Bob Shrum was running it. Oh…
Say what you will about Bush, and I sure do despise his politics with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but after the debates you could clearly state 5 things that he stood for (through clenched teeth of course) but with Kerry, you couldn’t quite put your finger on 5 clear positions when it was all said and done. You’re going to do what differently in Iraq exactly?
So as we try not to alienate every last evangelical with our cultural elitism, let’s spend the next couple of years looking for something better than what we’ve been given this time around. A better candidate that has the vision, intelligence, integrity and ability to inspire people from all walks of life with his message. A secular Jesus you retort? Perhaps.
If we can find that candidate (not that it will be easy but easier than telling millions of evangelicals they are wrong to believe what they believe and expect them to change as a result), we’ll win because I truly feel we have the better message. More broadly defined than gay marriage, abortion or stem cell research, I believe there is moral value in healthcare for all citizens, better public education, cleaner air, cleaner water, greater tolerance and a safer world. If we don’t find and field such a candidate then we’ll be faced with the same mediocre choices we’ve had in the past and we already know where that is going to lead to in ’08 – President Schwartzenegger! As a Californian I say “Never again!”
A dream you say? Too utopian? Maybe. Yet to strive for anything less would cheat all of us and this great country we live in.
Luka — about Kansas, not that it’s exactly apropos of anything important, but my whole family is from eastern Kansas and K.C. going back generations; my grandfather, father and uncle all played basketball for K.U., etc., . . . .
Will, please explain a “framework of value and identity different from, and in some ways better and worse than, ours.”
I disagree that the fault was Kerry’s. He is a Massachusetts liberal! and he got a lot of votes at the end of a bitter campaign. Clinton’s “one of them” routine only succeeded in 1992 because Perot split the GOP vote.
The best marketing campaign (Will, is this what you’re suggesting?)won’t sell folks a car if their identity is tied to a horse and cars have been promoted for 30 years as demon-spawn.
Rob,
Nice! I went to KU (if it wasn’t obvious already). Rock Chalk Jayhawk!!
I’m not from there but my mom grew up in Wichita and my dad grew up in KCK. I still have a lot of friends in the KC area. (I live in LA now.)
Anyway, I’m not saying that I’d want to go back and live there or anything but it’s nice to hear the state get a little play now and again. Even if much of it is for being a red state…
Pingback: Majikthise
Pingback: wiurtifoo
Oh my God! I love how much play Kansas (the state I went to college in and where my parents grew up) is getting at the moment! Will, you mention Wichita in this post. I just saw Joe Scarborough mention Topeka, KS when he was talking about the red state v. blue state issue. And last but not least, the Jayhawks men’s basketball team is ranked #1 in the preseason coaches poll. Nice. Very nice.
Also, I’ve been thinking over the last couple of days about what kind of country I’d rather live in, a socialist country where gays can get married, drug laws are more lenient, the culture is basically secular or a country where those things are illegal and the culture is pretty religious but the free market is allowed to operate in most other ways.
I can’t decide at the moment. But right this second I’m leaning towards prefering the socialist situation…
As much as I agree with some of the fear & loathing that’s being espoused regarding certain elements of the evangelical belief system, why not focus on something we can actually change? The god-squaders sure aren’t going to love god any less in 4 years and there will be a bunch more of them by then too (no contraceptives you know).
We have to vastly improve the “messenger” and better communicate “the message”. Bad war, bad deficit, bad environment, bad healthcare and yet Kerry just didn’t have what it takes to convince Americans he would be a better choice. That’s pretty bad in and of itself. I think many, if not most of us on the left, knew we were voting more “against Bush” than “for Kerry”. He was an awful candidate, had no clear and consistent position on many of the issues, had a woeful inability to connect with the public in a meaningful way and had no “message discipline” whatsoever for the convoluted message he did have. On top of that, his overall campaign was so poorly run you’d have thought Bob Shrum was running it. Oh…
Say what you will about Bush, and I sure do despise his politics with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but after the debates you could clearly state 5 things that he stood for (through clenched teeth of course) but with Kerry, you couldn’t quite put your finger on 5 clear positions when it was all said and done. You’re going to do what differently in Iraq exactly?
So as we try not to alienate every last evangelical with our cultural elitism, let’s spend the next couple of years looking for something better than what we’ve been given this time around. A better candidate that has the vision, intelligence, integrity and ability to inspire people from all walks of life with his message. A secular Jesus you retort? Perhaps.
If we can find that candidate (not that it will be easy but easier than telling millions of evangelicals they are wrong to believe what they believe and expect them to change as a result), we’ll win because I truly feel we have the better message. More broadly defined than gay marriage, abortion or stem cell research, I believe there is moral value in healthcare for all citizens, better public education, cleaner air, cleaner water, greater tolerance and a safer world. If we don’t find and field such a candidate then we’ll be faced with the same mediocre choices we’ve had in the past and we already know where that is going to lead to in ’08 – President Schwartzenegger! As a Californian I say “Never again!”
A dream you say? Too utopian? Maybe. Yet to strive for anything less would cheat all of us and this great country we live in.
Luka — about Kansas, not that it’s exactly apropos of anything important, but my whole family is from eastern Kansas and K.C. going back generations; my grandfather, father and uncle all played basketball for K.U., etc., . . . .
Will, please explain a “framework of value and identity different from, and in some ways better and worse than, ours.”
I disagree that the fault was Kerry’s. He is a Massachusetts liberal! and he got a lot of votes at the end of a bitter campaign. Clinton’s “one of them” routine only succeeded in 1992 because Perot split the GOP vote.
The best marketing campaign (Will, is this what you’re suggesting?)won’t sell folks a car if their identity is tied to a horse and cars have been promoted for 30 years as demon-spawn.
Rob,
Nice! I went to KU (if it wasn’t obvious already). Rock Chalk Jayhawk!!
I’m not from there but my mom grew up in Wichita and my dad grew up in KCK. I still have a lot of friends in the KC area. (I live in LA now.)
Anyway, I’m not saying that I’d want to go back and live there or anything but it’s nice to hear the state get a little play now and again. Even if much of it is for being a red state…