Re: [Marxism] Who is bitter now?

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology
of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is
wrong on virtually every count.

Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on
cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in
cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In
contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the
elites.

For the sake of concreteness, let?s define the people Mr. Obama had in
mind as people whose family incomes are less than $60,000 (an amount that
divides the electorate roughly in half), who do not have college degrees
and who live in small towns or rural areas. For the sake of convenience,
let?s call these people the small-town working class, though that term is
inevitably imprecise. In 2004, they were about 18 percent of the
population and about 16 percent of voters.

For purposes of comparison, consider the people who are their demographic
opposites: people whose family incomes are $60,000 or more, who are
college graduates and who live in cities or suburbs. These (again,
conveniently labeled) cosmopolitan voters were about 11 percent of the
population in 2004 and about 13 percent of voters. While admittedly crude,
these definitions provide a systematic basis for assessing the accuracy of
Mr. Obama?s view of contemporary class politics.

Small-town, working-class people are more likely than their cosmopolitan
counterparts, not less, to say they trust the government to do what?s
right. In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of
Michigan, 54 percent of these people said that the government in
Washington can be trusted to do what is right most of the time or just
about always. Only 38 percent of cosmopolitan people expressed a similar
level of trust in the federal government.

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social
issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who
are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who
favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The
corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and
for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the
votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to
reflect voters? positions on gun control and gay marriage.

Fred responds:
Basically, Mike, I think this article is worthless.  Basically an attempt to
replace the dominant right-wing stereotyping of small-town white workers
with liberal stereotyping, in which they are found innocent of racism,
sexism, and all the rest because they often vote Democratic.  

But the class and national and women's rights struggles are not primarily
between the Republican and Democratic Parties but against the fundamental
opposition of both and the record of the Clinton-Bush years right down to
the present, so, from our standpoint, voting Democratic is not the answer to
the question of whether there has been a substantial right-wing drift in
these sectors over the last years.

The word race was not mentioned in the article but this is really the
central core around which rightist shifts in these areas have revolved.
(Obama touched on racism only indirectly re the scapegoating of immigrants
-- which in typical US political style he followed up by throwing the
racists more red meat in terms of advocating further restrictions.)

The shifts away from this in a positive direction from these kinds of
politics, and the resulting embarrassment about the stereotyping, are both
good things.  I am glad that more and more people in the small towns are
getting angry and upset about supposedly being the infinitely
happy-with-things-as-they-are 'salt of the earth', the source of all morals
and decency in our nation, the "middle-class" foundation of everything good
about this most wonderful of all countries, the decent, hard-working white
folks.

But the shift to the right in bourgeois politics had a real basis, and
significant layers in the suburbs and small towns were part of it.  Reread
that article from the New York Times on Levittown, and note the core
elements of a protofascist program that the young agitator apparently
dreamed up out of his own head on the spur of the moment. 

By the way, I have never expressed my appreciation to Ruthless for getting
that article into the discussion. It was a major contribution and really
helped clarify my own thinking about what is going on. The key idea is
polarization and shifts in politics that are underway. I felt the scale of
the Democratic victory in the last Congressional elections was a signal of
this, and the depth of rejection of the Iraq war that it reflected. The
Obama campaign seems like another one, this time evolving more into a break
with the Clinton as well as the Bush years, and this time with a strong (but
not at present dominant, it seems) sector of the ruling class and political
elite.

It is positive motion, but it is change, not stillness.  And note this
bizarre paragraph in the article:

Small-town, working-class people are more likely than their cosmopolitan
counterparts, not less, to say they trust the government to do what?s
right. In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of
Michigan, 54 percent of these people said that the government in
Washington can be trusted to do what is right most of the time or just
about always. Only 38 percent of cosmopolitan people expressed a similar
level of trust in the federal government.

Do you think that rural, small-town, or suburban America was a complete
nonparticipant in the finding that an estimated 81 percent believe the
country is headed in the wrong direction?  Are we supposed to celebrate
supposed rural, small-town, and suburban American submissiveness? I think we
should celebrate the fact that some working-class people in these areas are
beginning to break with this conformity and obedience to reactionary
authority and speak in their own name and interests. That points toward the
possibilities of more united struggle.

I think Obama really did mangle his words, especially on the question of
religion. Fundamentally, the rural roots of religion are not that much
different than anywhere else, although forms and beliefs can take opposed
political forms. As for guns, he allowed the issue of hunting to get tangled
with the right-wing campaign for "arming the people" (actually vigilantes,
death squads, and rightist groups) for war against whatever they take to be
"crime" (abortion, sodomy, Black organizations, antiwar protests, and who
knows what else).

Personally I have the impression that the author of the column is righting
about a very peaceful solar system where all political questions are
strictly academic and earthly trouble is galaxies and galaxies away. In
deference to the prime directive, I plan to leave her be.
Fred


These and other shifts in politics are the reason why Obama seems so far to
continually pop out still untoasted in one crisis after another.

Frankly, I think the placid author is basically describing another planet.
Obama was wrong to bring religion into this, in my opinion -- the roots of
religion are fundamentally not that much different in the Black community
than in these areas though the ideology is sometimes quite different. And
the guns of hunters gets mixed up too easily with the "arm-the-people" war
against "crime" propaganda of the right.  But the idea that the phenomenon
he picked up on is his Pa. campaigning is a myth is simply a
counter-fantasy. 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu