Living poor, voting rich

[widebody911]

Living Poor, Voting Rich
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: November 3, 2004

In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.

"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and even local candidates to survive."

In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore., a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize with spotted owls rather than loggers.

One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America.

"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism, and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way," Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used "culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to ordinary voters.

To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.

One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.

Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago, Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns "and I use them all." He still lost.

As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth" abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions).

Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way environmentalism is often perceived in the West as high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears.

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.

[juanbenae]

i have been speaking with a few people in my office about this very thing this morning. simple people, complicated times i guess is the only explaination??

[bryanthompson]

us simple minded nebraska folk, all we know is protectin' ourselves, you know. them big words and all don't impress us *puts in a big chaw*

yep, life's good out here in the prairie land. we don't take kindly to those leftie types.

heh...hmm...

[cmccuist]

I've heard this argument before. Tax the rich and use the money for a govt program that will benefit the poor. That philosophy - taken to its ultimate conclusion - is socialism. The only ones who are prosperous are the ones dividing up the ever decreasing spoils.

Some of the other points in the argument were interesting.

[badcar]

I think that low-balls the midwestern belief structure. When did it become wrong to have faith in God or a value system based on other things than money. The term "simple people" shows the contempt the Democrats have for the recently proven majority of this country. It is those same "simple people" that put bread on your table at a buck a loaf.

[turbo6bar]

If the people are simple-minded, it should be easy for the Democrats to harness the vote. It is easier to support a man who shares similar ideals, rather than a man who has no ideals. It is not all about the issues, but rather who is capable of handling those issues, despite the fact such actions could be entirely wrong.

[Rot 911]

Perhaps it is more obvious. With Kerry you are guaranteed a subsistence living allowance through government grants. With Bush you are guaranteed the opportunity to dream, and if you combine that with hard work, the opportunity to rise out of poverty or lower middle class income.

[MichiganMat]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
us simple minded nebraska folk, all we know is protectin' ourselves, you know. them big words and all don't impress us *puts in a big chaw*

Not so fast. Nebraska isn't any danger of being hurt by anyone other than mother nature. NYC, SF, LA, maybe Vegas, Seattle, a few others are in harms way and those states are all blue, baby.

God, Guns, and Gays are what won this election. Iraq, Jobs, and the Environment were just a myth in the liberal mind, until today that is...

[hoff944]

Funny how all of those predominately democrat states you mentioned have extremely high costs of living.

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Not so fast. Nebraska isn't any danger of being hurt by anyone other than mother nature.

That's not true. we've had bomb threats (suspicious package in a greyhound package drop after having bomb threats to greyhound buss's nationwide) two blocks from where I work. Bomb squad from Lincoln came out, and I met a bunch of cool FBI guys. One of the hydro-electric dams by my house was being photographed by "suspicious types"... Sorry, guys, but out here any middle-easterner is going to look suspicious. The fact that they were photographing one of our dams and had camo bags in the back seat of the car was enough for one of my neighbors to call the FBI.

my previous post was sarcasm, obviously.

[Serge914]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
God, Guns, and Gays are what won this election. Iraq, Jobs, and the Environment were just a myth in the liberal mind, until today that is...

Well according to CNN exit poll Moral values ( religion ) and Terrorism won the election.

Economy, Health care, Education and Irak were not that important.

[bryanthompson]

the, umm... exit polls were pretty far off, btw. that's why everyone in the news is soo surprised.

[Iggy]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
the, umm... exit polls were pretty far off, btw. that's why everyone in the news is soo surprised.

We ought to all deliberately tell exit pollsters the opposite of how we voted. Watching the media screw up is fun!

[fintstone]

Funny how the article had all the info...but like all liberals..cannot read the writing on the wall. The people in the midwest keep telling the CA and north eastern liberals what they want...and the liberals keep saying....no, that is stupid...I know what is best for you.

[cool_chick]

Probably because the people in the northeast and CA and Chicago see the direct effects of the republicans failed policies, and work for the people in the rural areas who don't see the effects while they suck my tax dollars.

Great post widebody.

[fintstone]

yeah..liberals are really in tune with the folks in the midwest...that is why they keep wanting to release Grizzly bears and timber wolves in their neighborhoods.....Duh...I just can't imagine why they would be concerned?
When was the last time they released any in Chicago, LA, or NYC where they have to live??

[MikeCT]

Originally posted by fintstone
that is why they keep wanting to release Grizzly bears and timber wolves in their neighborhoods.....Duh...

Duh that's why they have guns. There is a great compramise keep the guns and get the predators.

[fintstone]

No, the guns are to keep an even more deadly menace out of their neighborhoods......liberals

[MikeCT]

What's a liberal?

[M.D. Holloway]

I lived in CT were the only ones carrying guns were the cops or the bangers. Here in Texas, if you don't have a gun you look like a puzzy, or worse, a yankee. It has taken 5+ years to stop saying "a" were "r" goes and "r" were "a" belongs. Drop in a few ya all's, fixin too's, and learn to slow down to half speed and you can start to fit in. The 45 and 12 gauge don't hurt - all in all, my hood is very well armed and I have never felt safer. Bring it on Abdul, the Lone Star State could defend this nation all by it self!