How a Cultural Phony War Can Become Very Real
The central idea of Thomas Frank’s fine book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, is that the modern right wing is powered by a contradiction: the grassroots, the ground troops of the movement, are recruited on the basis of a culture war against liberalism; but the politicians they put in power are concerned first and foremost to implement a right-wing economic agenda. A cultural “phony war” ensues, year after year, over abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, evolution…but, with few exceptions, little changes on these fronts. The myth of an all-powerful liberalism that always frustrates “real” Americans fuels constant outrage, a self-sustaining rebellion that keeps the troops (and their opponents) busy while the real business of undoing the New Deal, cutting taxes, and gutting regulations can go on largely unhindered. A “fake” culture war underwrites the “real” economic one.
And in the meantime liberals, having abandoned economic populism and severed important connections to their natural constituency in the working class, have nowhere left to fight but on cultural grounds.
Frank’s argument is about Kansas, but is probably even more relevant in the South, where politics can sometimes seem like a battle of symbols. The dynamics of phony culture war seem especially suited to the white South’s Lost Cause mythology and its rebel mystique, to Southern suspicion of Yankees, “elites,” and cultural others in general.
The trouble with Frank’s argument is, you really can't fake this sort of thing, not in the long run. Passions are inflamed, and eventually the grassroots will demand their due. Frank assumes that, on the whole, progress is never made on the cultural front; that’s the perpetual-motion machine that powers hard-right politics. But it’s important to keep in mind that, in fact, conservatives have made, and continue to make, important gains on cultural issues.
Take abortion rights, one of Frank’s main culture-war examples. Conservative activists haven’t yet succeeded in overturning Roe v Wade (though they are closer now than ever) – but they have steadily, incrementally chipped away at women’s right to choose, state by state, while beginning to demand a bolder stance from their leaders. And now there are signs that the center is caving, despite polls showing that the general public's support for abortion rights has remained consistent since the 1970s. Liberals are advised to abandon their “intolerance” and “defiance” on abortion, to stop speaking in terms of rights and instead to seek some sort of “common ground.”
Of course, abortion rights is also an issue of economic justice – you can’t always make clear-cut distinctions between “economic” and “cultural.” Those categories make a lot of sense when you’re talking about symbolic battles, over (for instance) the Confederate battle flag, or the public display of the Ten Commandments -- but not so much when the issue is, literally, the control of women’s bodies.
And in the meantime liberals, having abandoned economic populism and severed important connections to their natural constituency in the working class, have nowhere left to fight but on cultural grounds.
Frank’s argument is about Kansas, but is probably even more relevant in the South, where politics can sometimes seem like a battle of symbols. The dynamics of phony culture war seem especially suited to the white South’s Lost Cause mythology and its rebel mystique, to Southern suspicion of Yankees, “elites,” and cultural others in general.
The trouble with Frank’s argument is, you really can't fake this sort of thing, not in the long run. Passions are inflamed, and eventually the grassroots will demand their due. Frank assumes that, on the whole, progress is never made on the cultural front; that’s the perpetual-motion machine that powers hard-right politics. But it’s important to keep in mind that, in fact, conservatives have made, and continue to make, important gains on cultural issues.
Take abortion rights, one of Frank’s main culture-war examples. Conservative activists haven’t yet succeeded in overturning Roe v Wade (though they are closer now than ever) – but they have steadily, incrementally chipped away at women’s right to choose, state by state, while beginning to demand a bolder stance from their leaders. And now there are signs that the center is caving, despite polls showing that the general public's support for abortion rights has remained consistent since the 1970s. Liberals are advised to abandon their “intolerance” and “defiance” on abortion, to stop speaking in terms of rights and instead to seek some sort of “common ground.”
Of course, abortion rights is also an issue of economic justice – you can’t always make clear-cut distinctions between “economic” and “cultural.” Those categories make a lot of sense when you’re talking about symbolic battles, over (for instance) the Confederate battle flag, or the public display of the Ten Commandments -- but not so much when the issue is, literally, the control of women’s bodies.
25 Comments:
I've got to finish this book. I picked it up last August and read about 1/3 of it.
F-Stop
The right wing is definitely doing a better job right now of recruiting all the stupid voters.
I have to say that's not a particularly useful (or accurate) comment, abigail.
The assumption that people voting against their economic self-interests are somehow behaving stupidly is limiting. A more likely explanation is that economic self-interest isn't the most important motivator for these folks.
If that's true (and it appears to be, although I cannot prove it), then what we need to identify is what else might be more important to these voters.
I finished the book a short time ago, and what I found most disturbing was how divided people were between "moderate" and "extreme" factors in the Republican party.
Excerpt from book:
"Where Tiahrt is fiery, Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) is thoughtful and soft-spoken, the intellectual of the Kansas conservatives. If speaking in tongues is Ryun's trademark, Brownback's signature gesture was the time he washed the feet, in the manner of Jesus Christ, of an assistant who was leaving his service. While the Kansas conservative style generally features loud, sweaty campaigning at the most energetic and antihierarchical sort of Protestant churches-charismatic, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God-Brownback favors the approach of the unhurried insider, the ultramontane, even. In 2002 he converted to Catholicism under the supervision of the Reverend John
McCloskey, a leading light of Opus Dei, the ultraconservative prelature
renowned for its role in the Franco regime in Spain. Nor is Opus Dei the only right-wing quasi cult with which Brownback has chosen to link himself. When in Washington, he lives in a town house operated by a Christain group know as the Family or the Fellowship, whose mission seems to be bringing together American lawmakers with capitalists and dictators from around the
world. And studying the leadership secrets of Hitler*.
Howerever bizzare such eruptions of zealotry might be, they are not enough by themselves to discredit these men. What makes the Kansas way so remarkable-and so dysfunctional-is that in each case the state's lawmakers combine this flamboyant public piety with a political agenda that only makes
the state's material problems worse."
Anyone reading "The DaVinci Code" knows something about Opus Dei, and reading up on The Family/Fellowship is more than a little scary.
Scarier still is how many politicians are involved in what can only be described as a "cultish" group.
And previously to reading this book I had no idea there were such things as "survival" stores, let alone "rapture" Christmas cards.
Glad I live where I do :-)
I'm not sure abortion fits as an example.
Yes, there has been an upswing in talking about preventing abortion. But it remains to be seen what Hillary Clinton and NARAL have wrought.
It looks to me like an attempt to reframe the debate and remind people that the "pro-life" movement in the US is really a "pro-fetus" movement that is opposed to birth control and has no concern for children after birth. Except for trying to foist creationism, sorry, intelligent design on grade school kids.
In my view, focusing on the West will have better returns than focusing on the South. The West (NV, CO, NM, AZ) plus Florida is much less dogmatic on the key cultural issues involved than the South per se. However, certain parts of the South, such as the Durham area and the Charlotte area in NC, Austin/Dallas/Houston areas in Texas, as well as all of Florida, can be peeled away from the "deep South" because they are not really part of it. The returns on trying to turn states like AL, MS, TN and GA will be very low. By the time those states are voting Democratic, we would have a Democratic landslide anyways.
Tony,
You might want to read some more of the posts on this blog. It's called FACING SOUTH for a reason.
;-)
Tony --
The "go west" line (or "go midwest") line is big in Democratic circles these days, but I'm not sure why that's any more of a compelling strategy than building on the South's progressive potential.
You might check out some of the arguments we've made here and here.
I also think you get into dangerous territory in declaring certain parts of the South as "not really part of it." Durham as the "Black Wall Street" and center of Southern African American economic activity in the 1940s. Charlotte is the home of Southern finance today. Dallas and Houston are deeply Southern. And so on. Besides, there's nothing to be gained from using an antiquated (and conservative) definition of "Southern" as being only those populated by white people who have been here for a few generations. That ignores most of the South's history.
I'm not sure abortion fits as an example.As an example of what? Clearly abortion rights have been slowly rolled back state by state, via parental notification laws, the closing of clinics, fewer hospitals and doctors doing abortions, etc. Here's another link, aside from the ones in the post -- it looks like Georgia and Mississippi are set to restrict reproductive rights even further.
So yes, I'd say that this is a good example of conservatives making progress on the "cultural" front -- though, as I said, in the end you can't define abortion as purely "cultural" as opposed to "economic" or anything else. I talked about it because Frank features it prominently as an example of culture war (due to all the craziness in Wichita).
This aside, if you haven't read Frank's book, you should--it's the best political book in recent years.
I used to be most frustrated by those voting against their own economic self-interest by electing "conservative" Republicans. Then I realized, as modern carpetbagger put it, that "economic self-interest isn't the most important motivator for these folks."
Now my question is why fiscal conservatives continue to back the party, despite its racking up a debt into the trillions as the U.S. economy enters a phase where the potential for growth can only decrease.
Obviously, businesses get huge tax breaks (which historically they also tend to get under Democratic administrations). But in terms of wealthy individuals, would you rather be making lots of money off of investments and kicking a little bit back to the government, or losing it and getting to write it off your taxes?
Good article. I had a latter published in the nation in which I argued (persuasively I think) that voters in the South are quite rational and that they are willing to trade a little economic insecurity for the modest gains on the culture war front. These people are not stupid.
J.S.
http://voicesofreason.info
I think Frank's argument is that people vote against their economic self-interest because the Democratic Party has largely abandoned its New Deal heritage.
To be sure, Democratic administrations will enforce labor laws with more enthusiasm, for example, and this can make a huge difference in people's lives. But, as we know, the party doesn't challenge corporate power in any clear-cut, fundamental way. Economics are really not in question in most elections, except when Democrats (somewhat cynically) play the populist card in desperation.
So, without a clear distinction on economics between the parties, it's a lot easier for the right to get traction with hot-button culture war stuff. One thing that Frank takes pains to point out is the genuine class difference between moderate Republicans in Kansas (upper middle class) and conservatives (lower middle and working class). This doesn't hold throughout the country, but it's still suggestive that a lot of the energy that once might have gone to progressive economic populism now goes to hard-right "cultural" populism.
My bad, Gary.
"I'm not sure abortion fits as an example.As an example of what? Clearly abortion rights have been slowly rolled back state by state, via parental notification laws, the closing of clinics, fewer hospitals and doctors doing abortions, etc."
I re-read my comment and I realized it read as a general statement, when I really only meant to speak to whether or not "liberals" were actually shifting in their positions in response to this "battle of symbols".
Roe v Wade has been eroded, there's no doubt about it. The moral conservatives are gaining ground there.
So I didn't mean to dismiss your larger point.
There's a great interview with Frank in Salon from last June that pretty much sums up his arguments in the book (subscription req'd, or else you can sit through an ad). (The interviewer, Andrew O'Hehir, has a take on the book similar to mine.)
A couple related thoughts:
1) I'm not sure how to interpret H. Clinton's remark about "common ground." A more charitable interpretation was that she was merely "repackaging" a position that pro-choicers/progressives already hold, which is that we should find ways to make abortion less likely (and which conservatives, by insisting on "abstinence-only" education and other insane policies, only undermine.) But who knows.
2) I think we can add gay rights to the list of "culture issues" that the right is making "real," as opposed to "phony," progress on. More anti-marriage amendments are in the hopper. And those, of course, are "economic" issues to those whose partners end up in the hospital, lose their health insurance, etc.
Chris,
I think some of these things are fuzzier than merely "the right is making real progress".
First, it seems obvious to me that Clinton's comments are, well, Clintonian. NARAL jumped in right after her with an ad and media campaign effectively telling the right wingers to put up (and work to reduce unwanted pregnancies) or shut up.
Same with gay civil rights. Obviously, I'm not contradicting the fact that a lot of DOMA-style acts and amemdments are being cranked out by the right wing. But there has also been some righteous progress made. VT. MT. Looks like CT. Actions taken in San Francisco, Chicago, New Patz and Oregon.
I notice as I list these that none of them are in the South.
MT? MT?I meant MA.
The Democratic Party waivers on abortion rights at its own peril. Women in this country aren't going back, and if they abandon our most basic right - that to sovereignty over our own bodies- we will bury the Democrats.
The Party needs new leadership that isn't in bed with the same financial interests as the Republicans. And we need to stop accepting that "elite" label from the Right. They may be relying on votes from people who think they're being "moral" by supporting them, but the truly "elite" group in this fight is the Republicans. All they really care about is making the rich richer and to hell with the poor. We need to start using the phrase "Conservative Elite" and opposing that phony cowboy image Bush is so fond of. He's from Kennebunkport.
I haven't read Frank's book yet, but I did read the links Gary provided in his post and comments.
I'm curious how folks view Dean's speech in Topeka in light of Frank's ideas.
Morgaine,
I disagree with your entire argument about Dem's position on choice.
First, I don't believe there's much evidence that the Dems have shifted on the topic. IMHO, Reid's ascention was in spite of his choice stance, not because of it. And I find it difficult to read Hillary's recent comments in any light other than shifting the frame from "baby killers" to a more reasoned debate. Especially since NARAL started up a similarly themed campaign at the same time.
Second, the most basic right is life. No, I'm not arguing the anti-choice stance. Just pointing out that choice doesn't protect or impinge on that right, except in cases where pregnancy or birth are life-threatening. Roe v Wade, after all, hinged on the right to privacy, not sovereignty.
Third, what would burying the Democrats accomplish? At best, you would turn The Handmaid's Tale into prophecy, not fiction. And if it were truly possible to bury a political party, why not knock off the GOP first? They're the ones who want to make choice illegal.
Morgaine,
I'm also interested in the rest of your comment. Given recent events affecting the Democratic Party (Dean as DNC chair, Meeks as NC Chair, Tubbs Jones and Boxer's contesting OH, DFA's successes with their fundraising and Dean's Dozens candidates, public statements from Dem leaders about looking outside of the Washington cabal of political consultants), do you think that new leadership is beginning to emerge?
I admire a voter who does not vote his economic self inerest but I am appalled by rich voters who do. When I vote I try to weigh all factors and prioritize. I think we should stop criticising cultural voters and start examining our culture as world events impinge on it. Can we live and raise our children in a world without friends?
Hi- Sorry I'm late in responding to questions directed to me. No, I don't have faith the recent developments in party leadership mean anything. Every Democrat in both houses should have contested that ridiculous excuse for an election. Instead only Boxer and Tubbs Jones did, which means we missed the best opportunity to present a united front.
I love Howard Dean, but let's be realistic, he's not a liberal. He's at best a centrist, more accurately closer to a moderate Republican. The only real Democrats that ran in this election were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.
I agree that the Right to life is the most basic right. My living, breathing, sentient ACTUAL life trumps any potential life that might develop within me. If it's not about sovereignty, it should be. My uterus, my choice. No Uterus, no opinion.
When a party is dead, you bury it. The Democrats are still taking money from the same coroporate interests. They're still voting to confirm fascists and torturers. They've all but abandoned the labor movement, the poor, the environment, education, and health care. In the end it doesn't matter what they stand for if they're going to wilt every time the Right goes "boo" and stand by politely while they steal elections.
Morgaine,
"I love Howard Dean, but let's be realistic, he's not a liberal. He's at best a centrist, more accurately closer to a moderate Republican. The only real Democrats that ran in this election were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton."
I'm sorry? The primary issue for you is choice and you tag Dean as the centrist, near-Republican?
Vs. Dennis Kucinich, who had a miraculous change of heart on the issue when he decided to run for president? Or Al Sharpton, who was getting advice and financial aid from GOP operatives?
I'm being flippant, mostly to point out your flippancy. Liberal-moderate-conservative is a near-useless continuum in conversations like this. On most social issues, Dean is a liberal. On fiscal issues, he's more conservative. Not in the "tax cuts are nirvana" mode of the modern GOP, but in the "we must be fiscally responsible" mode.
Please re-read my comments. I was seeking clarity, not calling for a rejection of Roe v Wade.
I'm sorry? The primary issue for you is choice and you tag Dean as the centrist, near-Republican?
Vs. Dennis Kucinich, who had a miraculous change of heart on the issue when he decided to run for president? Or Al Sharpton, who was getting advice and financial aid from GOP operatives?
No, the primary issue for me is that this was the only field I had to choose from. All of our representatives have incestuous financial dealings - even Ralph gave in to it. Dean is going to have to show me something. So far, all I'm getting are fundraising requests. He's going to have to knock some heads on the hill to really win me over. And Dean is only as liberal on the issues as he needs to be. His natural tendency is to lean conservative, plus he's East Coast old money, so that makes him suspect for me from the start. They tend to take care of their own.
I'm being flippant, mostly to point out your flippancy. I'm not being flippant at all, I'm merely more extreme in my opinions than you expect me to be.
Liberal-moderate-conservative is a near-useless continuum in conversations like this. On most social issues, Dean is a liberal. On fiscal issues, he's more conservative. Not in the "tax cuts are nirvana" mode of the modern GOP, but in the "we must be fiscally responsible" mode.I don't disagree with any of that. My concern is that he only grudingly allowed Civil Unions in his state, that he didn't actively oppose the war and call for immediate withdrawal of troops, and he soft pedals - though somewhat effectively - on abortion.
Please re-read my comments. I was seeking clarity, not calling for a rejection of Roe v Wade.Any clearer, now?
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page