This NYT article brought to my attention at Max Sawicky’s blog
is the best illustration I’ve yet seen about why the Democrats are losing rural voters.
The article talks about the DNC’s strategies for winning back rural votes – by endorsing every negative stereotype of the rural life in the book.
In his very Southern way, Miller was making a point about culture. Rural voters bristle at the fact that in urban America, their chosen pastimes are considered backward, the punch lines to redneck jokes. And so the amorphous concept of respect, in rural America, has become a genuine political issue. African-American voters, long bound to the Democratic Party by issues like affirmative action and affordable housing, don’t demand that a candidate embrace hip-hop. But to rural voters, an appreciation for stock-car racing, hunting and bluegrass is a critical show of faith — and it has to precede any serious discussion of Social Security or tax cuts.
This is insulting to the extreme. So rural voters need to be placated by stock-car racing before the Democrats can spoon-feed them their message. If a Republican went around and told their candidates that they should have fried chicken and blues before every campaign event that person would probably be crucified by angry Democrats. Yet the DNC feels perfectly fine about playing to the stereotype of rural voters as beer-swilling, country-music listening hicks who only vote Republican because they think that Democrats are a bunch of godless heathens.
The Democrats aren’t losing rural votes because of appearances, they’re losing rural voters because of policies. They’re losing due to policies like their opposition to a permanent repeal of the estate tax, which means that the owners of family farms can’t afford to pass their land to their children. Their environmental stances on land-management often go against the interests of people who work and know the very land that the Democrats want to control. Every cent per gallon of gasoline cuts into the family budget – and that terrible gas-guzzling SUV that the Democrats love to demonize are often the only vehicles that stand a chance in those cold Midwestern winters.
The Democrats have this idea that they are the enlightened few, and that anyone who votes Republican only does so out of ignorance or malice. It’s an attitude that I’ve experienced often from Democratic partisans. Like all great hubris, in the end it will lead to an equally great fall.
Personally, I demand that my candidates like latte with sugar added, have memorized Lord of the Rings (the book, not the movie), and be cat people. Oh, and they can’t like the sun or care about football. They have to be exactly like me!
Dang, I thought that people running for political office should have familiarity with, you know, political stuff. But then I’m a city girl so I’m smart about such things, right?
“The Democrats have this idea that they are the enlightened few, and that anyone who votes Republican only does so out of ignorance or malice. It’s an attitude that I’ve experienced often from Democratic partisans. Like all great hubris, in the end it will lead to an equally great fall.”
“The Republicans have this idea that they are the enlightened few, and that anyone who votes Democratic only does so out of ignorance or malice. It’s an attitude that I’ve experienced often from Republican partisans. Like all great hubris, in the end it will lead to an equally great fall.”
Pots and Kettles, Pots and Kettles… maybe Nader (perish the thought) was on to something…
I’ll admit that sort of attitude is common among political partisans, but the difference in action and philosophy is telling. By far, most Republicans firmly believe in the idea that people should run their own lives as much as possible. Even those who are considered members of "the Christian Right" believe in individual rights in most things.
On the other hand, the Democrats seem to have a pervasive attitude that people simply have to have the strong hand of government to guide every single thing they do. Looking at the Wellstone supporters in this state is all one needs to see this attitude in play. They honestly feel that people would be completely lost without government running everything in their lives. Granted, they view that as being compassionate, but it’s still a very elitist philosophy. (The Naderites are equally elitist in their own way, even though their view is based on a kind of elitism of "awareness" rather than the typical view.)
Personally, I tend to lean libertarian on these issues, but then again many Republicans are libertarians who actually want to win an election from time to time.
There are conservative-libertarians- but don’t forget about us liberal-libertarians on the other side of the fence. It strikes me that many Republicans think it’s fine to run your own life- as long as you are white, heterosexual, don’t follow an alternative religion, don’t accidentally get yourself pregnant, don’t use recreational drugs other than alcohol or nicotine, and have a large enough income to afford the necessities of life. The way I see it, one party wants to run the country like a daycare center, and the other wants to run it like a country club for 10% of the population and a prison for the other 90%. Both options are pretty dark (and people on both sides would protest my characterizations), but as long as the balance is maintained, and no side ever gets the upper hand, neither dystopia will come to pass. That’s democracy- the middle path.
And as for the evil SUV- there are people out there who need them (farmers, ranchers, rangers, etc), I won’t deny that. But the idea that urban dwellers in the upper midwest (where I’ve made it through my life without an SUV) need them to get through the winter is ludicrous. (and, in fact, two SUV’s once parked around me in the Barnes and Noble parking lot, and because I couldn’t see out from behind me, I backed into an oncoming car. That didn’t leave me too predisposed to loving the vehicles, to say the least) Not that all SUV’s are that bad (have you seen the MPG on a Lexus SUV- they’re more efficient than my Taurus, and every single car that KIA makes…), but folks, it’s one of the worst cases of conspicuous consumption I’ve ever seen on the part of people who could probably do just fine with a midsize car (at half the price with twice the gas milage). And, when I’m in the market for a new car (about six or seven years from now), I’m going to buy a hybrid-electric vehicle. With Honda’s new models retailing at $21,000 and having the same bodies as their standard vehicle line, there’s no reason not to anymore.
The best way to cut off our dependence on the middle east- improve our fuel economy. And no legislator has to make me do it.