Josh Treviño writes on the interesting similarities between the Kossacks and the John Birch Society. The John Birch Society was a radical anti-Communist group that believed that Eisenhower was a Communist agent who sold out Joe McCarthy to Joe Stalin – a group that set the gold standard for paranoia in American politics. So much so that leftist historian Richard Hofstadter wrote a highly influential article on them called The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Indeed, some of Hofstadter’s description of the Birchers sound eerliy similar to the views of the Kossacks today.
Treviño writes about the demographics of the Kossacks:
The American left today is not quite in the position of the American right circa 1960. But it is suffering nonetheless, having been in slow decline for the past quarter-century. Even when it wins the Presidency, it loses the Congress: and even when the President is the inept, uncommunicative George W. Bush, it still cannot make a dent in the ascendancy of its enemies. The end result of this is a group of Americans, identifying as members of the left, that is strikingly similar to the conservative movement of a generation past: inchoate, angry, and prone to “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.â€
Consider the average member of this group. He (or she) remembers the era of leftist dominance of American politics — and he remembers the beginning of its end, on election day 1980. He is around 50 years old. He is professional living in a coastal enclave, mostly on the Pacific coast or the northeast. His political consciousness was formed by the McGovern and Carter campaigns — and of course the American retreat from Vietnam. He may have grown up in Iowa, or Texas, or Missouri, or Utah — but he went to college elsewhere, and fell in love with the people in California, or New York, or Boston, who were so much more progressive and intellectual than the hayseeds back home. His initial concept of conservatives, which he’s never really abandoned, was formed by Nixonian malfeasance: they’re all crooks and corrupt, in his mind. The ascent of Reagan in 1980, and later the 1994 revolution, came as a profound shock — how could America forget so soon? He is well-off: and the bulk of his working career — and hence the font of his personal prosperity — was spent in the boom markets of the 1980s and 1990s, under Republican national governance in one form or another. He doesn’t think about the implications of that much.
But for all his generally good circumstances, he’s been on the political and cultural losing side all his adult life. He’s tired of it. And he’s found a website which, at last, makes him feel empowered. He is, in short, the typical member of the so-called netroots: the left-wing movement, organized around blogs, that seeks to “take back†this country from its usurpers. The netroots is a movement born of desperation and a sense of embattlement at being on the losing side of historical forces. It sees itself as the inheritor and the guarantor of true American tradition and identity, and it seeks to restore those things to their rightful primacy in national life. Critically, it choose to not merely fight its foes, but emulate them. It sees the prime virtue of its enemies as their ability to win, and if they can just crack the code — if it can grasp the very methodology of victory — then they will turn the tables, and victory will be theirs.
Treviño’s view of the Kossacks is based in large part around a self-commissioned survey of Daily Kos readers that revealed that the average Kossack is educated, wealthy, and coastal. (And presumably white.) This isn’t a revolution of the downtrodden, nor is it a particularly youthful movement. Unsurprisingly, the demographics of the Kossacks coincides with the profile of your average urban liberal.
The essential problem for Democrats (and hope for Republicans) is that particular worldview is deeply unpopular in this country. In 2003 the Roper organization conducted a study of partisan self-identification in the United States. Self-identified “conservatives” out-numbered self-identified “liberals” by a ratio of 1.8 to 1. National Election Service data also shows the same general trend. If the Kossacks want to build a true mass movement, they can’t do it based on their own “progressive” base – there are simply not enough of them.
In order to win elections in this country, you have to appeal to the broad center of the electorate. (As Anthony Downs stated in his An Economic Theory of American Democracy) – and while the “progressive” movement claims to represent the interests of the downtrodden in American society, nearly 60% of them make more than $75,000/year – nearly double the median income. Openly liberal candidates don’t win elections outside of deeply blue areas – Tom Daschle lost in South Dakota in 2004 in large part because he was painted as a liberal obstructionist. The last group that has a great deal of credibility with Middle America are patrician urban liberals.
The Kossacks are interesting as a political movement, even if they’re little more than a bunch of nutballs. However, like the John Birch Society before them, such political movements tend to quickly burn themselves out. American democracy tends not to tolerate radicalism, and if the “netroots” gain the political power within the Democratic Party they so desperately seek, it will be at the expense of political victory with the American people.
The Kossacks are in many ways the inheritors of the paranoid style in American politics – trying to emulate the organizational tactics of those they despise.
Excellent piece, Jay. That demographic survey has a lot of potential for our side — especially if its findings are sustained in further research. If they are, then we might begin to see the online left as basically the last gasp of Baby Boomer leftism. Like the Birchers, they will seem alarmingly powerful for the bulk of a decade — and then fade away with remarkable swiftness.
We’ll know soon enough.
“He (or she) remembers the era of leftist dominance of American politics — and he remembers the beginning of its end, on election day 1980. He is around 50 years old. He is professional living in a coastal enclave, mostly on the Pacific coast or the northeast. His political consciousness was formed by the McGovern and Carter campaigns — and of course the American retreat from Vietnam. He may have grown up in Iowa, or Texas, or Missouri, or Utah — but he went to college elsewhere, and fell in love with the people in California, or New York, or Boston, who were so much more progressive and intellectual than the hayseeds back home”
Is there some rule that being a conservative requires one to be an insufferable prick?
The success of the modern conservative movement can almost exclusively be credited to the systematic conflation of cultural grievances allegedly being waged by the pretentious coastal elites against the authentic masses, grievances that are as petty as they are vague. Given the undeniable success of this tactic in swelling the ranks of self-identified conservatives, it’s understandable that Trevino is attempting to extend the formula to Kossacks and hopes his gasoline-soaked rag erupts on the culture war bonfire and rally Middle American soybean farmers to the kind of passionate hatred for Kossacks (good luck with that) that they have towards renowned Democratic Party spokespersons like Paris Hilton and Sean Penn. Unfortunately for Trevino and his ilk, the evidence is growing that driving a wedge between the sweating classes and the disempowered “latte-sipping, Volvo-driving elitist liberal cabal” is not working as well as it used to. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/revenge_of_the_walmart_voters.html
“the average Kossack is educated, wealthy, and coastal. (And presumably white.) This isn’t a revolution of the downtrodden, nor is it a particularly youthful movement. Unsurprisingly, the demographics of the Kossacks coincides with the profile of your average urban liberal.”
The average “urban liberal” is not white, not educated, and not wealthy. Humorous how in conservative-speak, the only true “urban” area in America is the west side of Manhattan…..and to use their own Jew-baiting tactics against them, doesn’t this basically equate to anti-Semitism???
“In order to win elections in this country, you have to appeal to the broad center of the electorate. ”
Then it’s a good thing the “broad center” of American politics agrees with the Democratic Party’s position on every major issue (the GOP is losing its edge even on fighting terrorism….what with Afghanistan under the control of warlords and all).
“Openly liberal candidates don’t win elections outside of deeply blue areas”
That is true….and Dennis Hastert knows it. That’s why he’s so feverishly and shamelessly flaunting his new (“new” being a very subjective term in this case) “American Values” agenda in Congress to accentuate cultural wedge issues like flag burning in the hopes of keeping Middle American soybean farmers disgusted at “openly liberal candidates”. The ploy is so transparent that I’d be surprised if it worked this time. I guess we’ll know in November.
“The Kossacks are in many ways the inheritors of the paranoid style in American politics – trying to emulate the organizational tactics of those they despise.”
Hmmm. Which “organizational tactics” are they emulating? You still stuck on the John Birch Society needle here?
A swing, and a miss…
Which only explains why liberals seem to have trouble winning elections in this country. Telling the rest of the nation that their values are “petty” is one of the reason why arrogant liberals tend not to to do well outside of their coastal enclaves.
Actually, no, that’s not the point at all. He’s making a comparison between two radical organizations, a comparison which is pretty damn clear. The paranoia of the Kossacks and the paranoia of the Birchers is eerily similar.
Hell, your own rhetoric proves the point. Not only is your analogy tortured enough I’m surprised Andrew Sullivan isn’t calling for your resignation, but it’s non-sensical to boot.
Which is only true if you argue that President Bush and cultural conservatism are the same thing – which Mr. Trevino would undoubtedly say is completely and utterly wrong. Wal-Mart voters may be skeptical of the President, but it’s damn clear they’re even more skeptical of urban liberals. And the reason they’re pissed at the GOP is because they’re not conservative enough when it comes to securing the borders and spending.
Furthermore, attempts to create such arbitrary demographics are usually stretches in and of themselves.
Kos’ own survey says that they are. Nor does this equate to “anti-Semitism” in the slightest, Jews generally aren’t liberal because they’re Jews, they’re liberal because they’re urban and affluent. Nor is it “anti-Semitic” to point out voting behavior, unless you want to argue there’s something inherently wrong with being a liberal. Not even I would go that far.
And yet the Democrats still keep losing elections…
If Hastert were smart, he’d let the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot once again. Sadly, the GOP leadership isn’t that smart.
Actually, every time I read your comments, I’m reminded of what Hofstadter wrote in The Paranoid Style:
But hey, what do I know. I’m just an “anti-Semite” trying to throw my “gasoline-soaked rag” on the “cultural bonfire” while I seethe in my “hatred for the decentrallization of wealth and basic workplace justice”. After all, anyone who doesn’t agree clearly must be a “bumpkin”, right? After all, we’re just standing in the way of “peasants collectively standing up against the powers that be”.
“Wal-Mart voters may be skeptical of the President, but it’s damn clear they’re even more skeptical of urban liberals. And the reason they’re pissed at the GOP is because they’re not conservative enough when it comes to securing the borders and spending.”
Oh really? Then how do you explain this: “Wal-Mart voters are giving Democrats a 6-point edge as to who’s better equipped to handle foreign policy, an 18 percent edge on health care and a 25 percent edge on gas prices (the parties are dead-even among Wal-Mart voters on the economy and immigration). What’s more, moral values hardly rate as an issue this year, for any voting bloc.”
“Nor does this equate to “anti-Semitism†in the slightest”
If you’re able to play the anti-Semite card over a liberal’s grievance with a specific military policy enacted by the Ariel Sharon government as you have done, then I’m able to play the anti-Semite card when you insult “urban liberals”. I had forgotten how much fun guilt-by-association games could be until I discovered the right-wing blogosphere.
“The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will.”
Interesting that you would wield that quote on me in THIS thread, where you endorse Trevino’s faux populism which equates Kossacks’ alleged urbanity with strawmen about frothy elitism and dripping contempt for the “hayseeds”. The Great Conservative Backlash of the past generation has culminated as a result of inspiring a quaking and convulsive rage in the hearts of the persecuted pious at the hands of the omnipresent and impenetrable “liberal elite” puppetmasters….a group that cultural backlash folklore continues to peddle as growing more powerful by the day even though the self-proclaimed friends of the culturally pure masses control every level of government. Again, your context for critiquing my partisan histrionics could hardly be more ironic.
“But hey, what do I know”
The Republican script….by heart…and you take to the stage to deliver it with vigor even when the audience has long ago left the theater.
Conservatives win on the strengths of “grievances that are as petty as they are vague.”
Well.
Let me go on the record as strongly urging the American left to listen to Mark, and hew closely to his wisdom.
The “left” and the “right” have switched sides, as far as technique goes… and the “right” has proven consistently more effective.
It was the “right” that invented said Paranoid style, as you point out- and continued to use it well into the 90’s (and today). “Liberal Secular Humanists”- an amoral, rich, coastal elite- conspire to control everything and destroy all that is good in America! While you point out the John Birchers, you’re forgetting that the Moral Majority, Promise Keepers, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, and just about every right-wing organization has used this same conspiracy theory to deploy their troops. And it worked.
At the same time, there seems to be a moving away from this in on the right, and toward the 60’s leftist strategy of “the Personal as Political”- which they’ve proved they can do better than the “left”. At the same time, as this alienates libertarians and moderates, it could be a shot in the foot.
Josh:
Indeed. “Petty as they are vague” is an apt description. I grew up in South Dakota, (and now live in New Mexico) and I still don’t understand the grievances against liberalism, or so called “elitists”. I don’t understand the culture war; I was raised by lifelong liberals with very conservative lifestyles; I don’t see why we can’t all just get along and let people live the way they want to live and believe what they want to believe, but perhaps I’m simply naive…
Except those organizations weren’t all expressly political nature. The Moral Majority was, but their influence died out. Promise Keepers was mainly a Christian men’s organization, and not political. Concerned Women for America isn’t a group I know enough about to judge, and the Eagle Forum was designed to combat the ERA – and afterwards they became less influential in the conservative movement.
I think people dramatically underestimate the value of culture in society. Conservatives see the decline of the family as a major concern specifically because the family is the way in which the democratic and republican values of this country were always propagated – and public education does a stupendously crappy job of replacing the family, and never can. A society in which famlial bonds aren’t strong isn’t a particularly healthy society. One of the points I’ve made a few times is how closely correlated things like poverty and crime are correlated to the decay of the family.
What Edmund Burke called the “permanent things” are important, and worth defending. That’s why conservatives are so strong on preserving our culture, because if we lose it, democracy soon follows.
“A society in which famlial bonds aren’t strong isn’t a particularly healthy society.”
I won’t argue with that assessment. How it relates to the Republican party platform of placing a premium priority on promoting productivity (how’s that for alliteration?) gains in the workplace and wresting as much blood as possible out of as few of workers, is less clear. A political party that passionately and habitually seeks to undermine overtime compensation and the collective bargaining units that make them possible while simultaneously bemoaning the deconstruction of “familial bonds” should be instantly suspect to any voter capable of determining that two plus two equals four.
Easy, because that particular platform exists only in your head. The argument that productivity increases are a strictly Republican invention is delusional. Hell, one of the primary purposes of education is to create a more productive workforce – I suppose education is wrong now too.
Except overtime pay and collective bargaining has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the American family, except in those who keep wanting to reduce everything to increasing the power of the state.
Which just proves my point that liberals don’t understand the value of culture – they have a pathological obsession with quasi-Marxist theories of economic determinism that blind them to everything else.