So, this Greek Guy Showed Up At My House…
[I take you now to the middle of a conversation I had in my living room with this weird guy who showed up and wanted to ask a bunch of questions. He had a long white beard and a Greek accent.]
Me: …but Soc, you’re talking about The Republicans’ deluded base, here. You know, the people agitating for tax cuts for their boss’s boss’s boss? What possible use could they be to the Democrats?
Socrates: I can see I’m outmatched here, and must bow to your superior wisdom in this matter. I just have one or two questions, and I was hoping you could enlighten my ignorance.
Me: Sure, Soc. Shoot.
Socrates: Who are these people you call the ‘base’ of the Republican Party?
Me: Oh, you know…working stiffs…people in our society who are more or less powerless. People with stagnant wages, maybe just a high school education, who have little or no power in the workplace or the rest of society, and feel some vicarious empowerment when they hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity “speaking up for them”.
Socrates: He speaks for them, does he?
Me: Well, of course. You know, against the dirty, heathen Liberals who want to turn America into a totalitarian, socialist hellscape?
Socrates (aghast): The Democrats want to do that?
Me: Are you serious?? No, of course not!
Socrates: Well, that’s a relief. I just wonder then: why are they not voting for Democrats? They used to, in huge numbers, as I recall…
Me: I already told you – The Republicans have the wool pulled over their eyes.
Socrates: But I still don’t understand: why did they stop voting for Democrats? I remember quite a long period when people like that voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, every single election, starting in 1932.
Me: Well, you know, that was a different time, then…
Socrates: Really? And how was it different?
Me: Well, to begin with, there was the Great Depression, which threw everyone out of work. The Republican response was: let charity take care of the indigent, and let The Market right itself. The Democrats had specific, concrete plans to help the people who were hurting…and so the Republicans just got killed in the ’32 elections…
Socrates: Ah, so the Republicans learned their lesson, and sing a different tune, now?
Me: Well, of course they– you know, come to think of it, no. They are pretty much saying and doing the same things now as they did then.
Socrates: Then I’m still confused – why are all those poor farmers and minimum-wage earners and economically hurting people now voting for Republicans?
Me: I already told you – the Republicans are appealing to their fears and prejudices!
Socrates: I see. Let me ask you: Have you ever experienced feelings of fear, and even prejudice, within yourself?
Me (thinking): Oh, sure. It’s probably a universal human experience to some extent.
Socrates: Did you enjoy it?
Me: What, feeling those things? No, I guess not – not deeply, anyway. Who wants to be afraid? Anyway, what’s your point?
Socrates: Do you think the people who now are caught up in the Republicans’ fear mongering and pandering to prejudices are enjoying the experience – I mean, really, deeply enjoying it??
Me: Um, probably not…
Socrates: Then why do they allow the Republicans to keep doing it?
Me: You lost me.
Socrates: As we’ve established already, not only are they powerless, but their prejudices and fears are only adding to their misery. Isn’t that true?
Me: I’ve never thought of it that way, but yes, I guess you’re right. What the heck is wrong with them?
Socrates: Do you remember the impassioned speech given at the 2008 Democratic National Convention – the one everyone remembers – where the speaker eloquently called for huge amounts of assistance for struggling family farmers, a living wage for all American workers, card-check legislation to help workers get some power in the workplace, and shooting barbs at the Republican rich, “lolling obscenely in their opera boxes”?
Me: Um…(thinking)…No, actually I don’t.
Socrates: Neither do I. Do you want to help people who are trapped in economic stagnation, and are being exploited with fear and prejudice?
Me: Well, yeah, that’s a large part of the reason I’m a Democrat.
Socrates: Well, how can you help them?
Me: Like I said, they are pretty much beyond help…
Socrates (now genuinely shocked): You don’t really believe that, do you?
Me: Well, what can we do for those people?
Socrates: “Those people”? Didn’t you describe them yourself as, “Working stiffs…people in our society who are more or less powerless. People with stagnant wages, maybe just a high school education, who have little or no power in the workplace or the rest of society?”
Me: Yes, that’s right: the Republican Base.
Socrates: We also went over how the Democrats gained a large and enduring majority in the past by coming up with specific, concrete plans to help people who were hurting, did we not?
Me (dawning realization): Uh, yes, I guess so. But what about the social issues – abortion, gay rights and so on?
Socrates: Think about this for a moment. How much does the status of gay marriage or the legal status of abortion increase their misery on a daily basis, in the course of living out their day-to-day existence?
Me: Actually, on a day-to-day basis…? Probably not much. Not much at all, really.
Socrates: And how much does the fact that they are, in your words, “people in our society who are more or less powerless…with stagnant wages, maybe just a high school education, who have little or no power in the workplace or the rest of society” make their lives harder, on a daily basis?
Me: I imagine it’s a constant, grinding bummer…
Socrates: So, if you offered a whole list of ways to help them with those concrete, constantly-lived, ever-present miseries – in fact, if you organized your agenda around those issues, and hit the talking points constantly – do you imagine they might just consider giving your party a strong and enduring governing majority?
Me: Coming back to the social issues, Soc – what about them?
Socrates: If the Democrats re-take the people who are now the Republican’s base, might that have an effect on the legal status of abortion? Imagine if the Republican Party kept opposition to abortion as part of their platform, and the Democrats had a huge surge in pro-life voters — might that begin to turn the tide in favor of restricting abortion?
Comments are closed.
Matt,
In the above dialog, you describe the 1932 election thusly:
there was the Great Depression, which threw everyone out of work. The Republican response was: let charity take care of the indigent, and let The Market right itself. The Democrats had specific, concrete plans to help the people who were hurting…and so the Republicans just got killed in the ‘32 elections…
This is, of course, a common description of the events leading up to 1932. But it’s not really accurate. For example, here is Hoover accepting the Republican Nomination in August of 1932:
And here he is in October:
By contrast the Democratic Platform in 1932 called for:
An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25% in the cost of the Federal government.
This was echoed by Roosevelt in his acceptance speech:
I forget who it was, but some historian once remarked that reading the contemporary accounts, you would be forgiven in thinking that the newspaper editors had slipped up at attributed all of Hoover’s quotes to FDR and visa versa.
Seems to me you have a strange idea about the “Republican base” as a bunch of ignorant Joe Sixpack types. Is your elitism showing? Or am I missing the joke here?
Someone with more solid facts than I have at command may speak up, but I’m pretty sure the “Republican base” is made up of quite a variety of people from different economic and educational levels.
But I sure take your point that many people support the republicans whose interest would seem to lead them to support democrats (someone recently wrote a book about this phenomenon in Kansas, I believe; a little help needed here). I think what keeps them from voting their interests is their American faith in liberty–rugged individualism–”I am the Captain of my Fate”–and all that, which you can hear about endlessly on talk radio.
No one seems to much notice, by the way, that this particular gospel is the polar opposite of the gospel of Jesus Christ, saying in no uncertain terms, “I am not my brother’s keeper.”
Maybe what the “Republican base” needs to see the error of its ways is to hear proclaimed and preached vigorously the words of the Hebrew prophets and of Jesus about loving and caring for our fellow humanity.
The last several Popes and the US Catholic bishops–not to speak of martyrs like Romero and many Catholic sisters–have been doing their parts in this endeavor, but apparently it has not been enough. The parish priests and all the rest of us, insofar as we can, had best join in.
Is your elitism showing? Or am I missing the joke here?
David:
If I’m an elitist, I’m not sure what a populist would look like – I make below the median national income, I live in a studio apartment that’s probably smaller than your car, I drive a six year old Toyota that I can barely afford the payments on, I very occasionally eat out when I can afford it, which isn’t usually, I’m dreading the next round of layoffs at work, I hunt deer, etc. I’m speaking up for folks like me, not for the elites of society.
The Republicans are all about the needs of the rich – always have been, always will be. They make populist noises at folks like me, and lots have been taken in by that. Heck, I was for years – I started my voting life as a loyal Reagan Republican.
But have you ever noticed (as I eventually did) that the things the Republicans make sure to get accomplished when they have power (as opposed to things they mostly make noise about) are things that benefit their constituency: rich people?
The book you’re thinking of is “What’s the Matter with Kansas” by Thomas Frank, and I recommend it if you haven’t read it.
I hope you also issued a stern warning on the importance of building up an immunity to hemlock.
I was too busy having my youth corrupted, Adamv :)
The Republicans are all about the needs of the rich – always have been, always will be.
Talk about your simplistic prejudices. Thanks for the demonstration, Matt. I don’t know if you noticed, but Wall
Street overwhelmingly supported Obama last year, and his administration is littered with Goldman Sachs alumni. Or that the news this week is that Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. Or that 8
of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. Now, do you think all those “rich” people are voting against their own economic interests? If so, could I interest you in a bridge I own in Brooklyn?
I might add that I belong to neither the War & Torture Party (GOP) nor the Abortion Über Alles Party (Dems).
Mark –
I don’t know if you noticed, but Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama last year, and his administration is littered with Goldman Sachs alumni. Or that the news this week is that Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. Or that 8
of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats.
Oh, I noticed, believe me, and didn’t like it a bit. Part of the motivation for this post, really.
could I interest you in a bridge I own in Brooklyn?
Well, given that I can’t even keep my balcony clean, I think I’ll pass.
Mark: thank you for your moral consistency. I’ll admit that I tend to associate more with the Democrats for various reasons, but I’ve become more and more convinced over the last few months that the best thing for this country would be a viable third party. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having one party speak for corporate interests given the amount of wealth that corporations generate, but that only works if the other party speaks for the “working stiffs.” Unfortunately, we’re now at the point where both parties speak for the corporations, a fact that I think Matt acknowledged in a previous post (his “rang” against the “idiot Democratic Party.”) And, of course, both have completely abandoned any consistent philosophy of fundamental human dignity, the Republicans with their war/torture and the Dems with their abortion (and really vice versa, since the Republicans don’t seem too interested in ending abortion, and the Obama administration didn’t really end torture).
God send us a Christian Democratic Party! (“Christian Democratic” in the classical sense, not in the sense of “modern-day American Democrats who are Christians”)
God send us a Christian Democratic Party!
God does not send us political parties (and let me say that I think God is right on this matter). That is the work of His children on earth. Of course, in our American system of government, it is easier to take over an existing party than to create an effective new one.
Mickey, I would still encourage you to join the Ward 5 Democratic Committee. They would put you on the Executive Committee in no time.
Matt,
My 2001 Saturn (actually the wife’s car, and two years older than your fancy-schmancy Toyota!) is pretty small, so it may not be bigger than your living space, and I am not worried about a lay-off at work because that happened to me in 2005, but let’s not get into a bidding war about the humbleness of our circumstances!
Maybe you don’t have to be a member of the elite to have an elitist view on some matter or other. Anyhow, I didn’t mean to be name-calling, but only to suggest what I believe to be true, that lots of different types of Americans support the Republican party.
As far as the Republicans always supporting the rich, nothing could be plainer. They are remarkably consistent and persistent and shamelessly open in the effort–and what they are pushing is basically the polar opposite of the Christian gospel, as I pointed out previously.
Wow. That piece was really condescending! The implication it leaves is that you believe your political opponents are really just rubes in need of your shining vision. That’s not the best tact to take in winning votes.
Jenny –
The implication it leaves is that you believe your political opponents are really just rubes in need of your shining vision.
You’ve got it all wrong – my intention was actually to speak against the attitude you describe, and to propose that the Democratic Party return to its New Deal roots and help folks like me, rather than the affluent, socially libertarian “creative class” types it works for now.
I believe that your intention was good, but it didn’t sound that way to these usually Republican voting ears.
I absolutely agree that the Republicans aren’t necessarily for “the little guy,” but neither are the Democrats. Both parties use the conveniently defined middle class to gain votes and then enrich themselves.
I’ve heard it said that “the Republicans are for the rich and have a vested interest in keeping the rich rich, but the Democrats are for the poor and have a vested interest in keeping the poor poor. Which is worse?” I am not claiming that as air tight logic, just a point of reflection.
I am not pleased with either party as both are spending us into oblivion. I am ready for a third party and I think the country is ripe for it.
I think the idealists who identify as Democrats (me, for example) have an interest in alleviating the suffering of the poor, not keeping them in misery, Jenny. Programs like Social Security, Head Start, Food Stamps, and AFDC have undeniably alleviated suffering: we can debate the unintended consequences of those programs, but they undeniably sprang from citizen’s consciences being troubled by destitution in the midst of wealth, and responding through their government.
Matt, it’s very fortunate that Socrates completely agrees with your politics and accepts your analysis, and only sought to question your tactics. He rarely lets people off so easily.
I’ll remember to thank him, Pinky :)