The summer that defines America
This summer will decide the course of American politics for the next decade.
I know — that sounds like hyperbole. And it’s sour news for anyone weary of the constant melodrama of our nation’s civic life.
Especially among liberals, there was a sense that 2008 was the Year of Change.
It seemed that victory might mean a period of calm, of business-as-usual, of something like normalcy.
Turns out, not so much.
The election of Barack Obama and massive Democratic majorities raised to a fever pitch the culture war that has been simmering for decades.
The vision of a black president and a woman, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, symbolize the tectonic shifts taking place in our society.
Democrats are also pushing an ambitious agenda, attempting to roll back much of the laissez-faire policy that might loosely be defined as Reaganism.
Republicans, meanwhile, have doubled down on their embrace of a kind of rural-white traditionalism.
Iconic figures like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee have barnstormed the country, promising to reclaim the ‘real’ America.
For a time, it seemed like this Republican backlash would be unstoppable.
Polls show that many Americans are deeply disconcerted with the direction of the country, and with Mr. Obama’s leadership.
But the GOP may have gone too far, passing an immigration law in Arizona that even many conservatives describe as ‘draconian.’
They have also decided to block reforms of the banking system that swindled millions of American, while helping to push our economy to the brink.
Conservatives, meanwhile, have pushed ever-more-conservative candidates, convinced that voters will accept candidates who — to cite the example of JD Hayworth in Arizona — have conflated homosexuality with bestiality.
It’s unclear whether that kind of hard line will play outside of the GOP’s strongholds.
Why is this campaign season’s dust-up so significant over the long haul?
If voters embrace this version of the GOP, it will almost certainly signal the final, unambiguous end of Republican moderatism.
What’s more, in many cases it will likely be more moderate Democrats who are defeated in November, including Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln.
The result could very well be a narrowly divided Congress, in which the two parties are far more divided and intractable than what we see today.
Of course, there are still six months to go before the ballots are cast – that’s an eternity in politics.
And it appears that Democrats have suddenly decided that passing legislation — from financial reform to immigration reform — will boost their chances.
That introduces a lot of new variables.
But by late summer we should have a clear snapshot of the next America.
Will it be a country where Democrats hold a solid, defensible mandate to govern?
Or will it be an ideological hothouse, with liberals and conservatives preaching two very different visions of our future?
.png)
Bret – We have deleted your comment. Your language this morning was absolutely unacceptable.
I don’t care whether you meant it as satire or sarcasm. In future, do better or you will no longer be welcome here.
–Brian, NCPR
Harry Reid is a moderate? Wow.
The best thing that could happen for this country and President Obama would be a divided government. Clinton was a great President because he was forced to really compromise to get anything done with a conservative Congress.
The future of the Republican Party will not be the moderate Republicans of the 1970’s nor will it be the social conservatives of the 1990’s, in my opinion it will take a libertarian turn, which would be a true departure from the past.
Brian, I told you the term “rural white” is offensive in the manner you use it. You said you used it with respect and nuance. I merely showed the same respect you do towards anyone living in a rural area who happens to be white. Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you phrase it.
Surely a man of your education and ability must be able to come up with a less divisive, less racially charged term or phrase to describe traditional American values.
BTW- I’ve never felt “welcome” here. Tolerated, maybe.
Mervel has a very clear vision of where the right is going IMO. Personally I’m done voting “Row A” and putting a socialist with and “R” behind his name in office. Tried that, didn’t work. Our current path is unsustainable. Socialism is no answer to our problems, it’s what got us here. We can do better. We can have reasonable regulation and capitalism together. We can have rights and freedoms without changing our traditional values. We can trim the fat and have a leaner, more fit system to work in. But none of that will happen if we keep putting up with career politicians, special interest money, corporate level fraud and collusion, political/industrial collusion and a the idea of a welfare state being a good thing.
Bret –
No, sorry. The language that you used — which I won’t repeat here — is not comparable in any respect to the term “rural white.”
People talk about “inner-city Hispanics” or “New York City’s black community” all the time.
There is nothing — zero — biased or bigoted in mentioning a group’s race and geography.
In America, those things often define political and cultural values. If we can’t talk about them honestly and respectfully, we’re sunk.
–Brian, NCPR
here here, brian. i guess everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but i for one am at a loss to see how this or anything i’ve ever seen you write about “rural” or “white” people is the least bit offensive. i think it’s the conservative persecution complex striking again.
Well, I certainly have no intention of going back through hundreds of old posts searching for Brians use of the term “rural white” and it’s context. Suffice it to say that when Brian says “rural white’ he means uneducated, racist hicks, you know- clinging to their God and their guns. Deliverance would be a step up for Brians rural whites. Brian has said rural whites enjoy far too much representation in gov’t and that that is wrong, wrong, wrong. So it must be Brian wants to disenfranchise rural whites and put the uneducated hicks in their trailers and pick ups in their place- somewhere out of sight and out of mind.
I’m not sure why you think “nuance” makes a disparaging, bigoted term okay. I have never once seen you use rural white in a favorable or even middle of the road context Brian, not once. Even in this entry you refer to “rural white traditionalism” in a way that clearly is unfavorable. You may as well just call a spade a spade and say racist/homophobe/gun nut/anti-tax/pro-revolution/hate mongering idiots. I suppose “rural white” is a lot easier to write.
When I see you start praising rural whites for their work ethic, for their ability to live without a multitude of instant public services and urban convenience, for providing the food, fiber, minerals, building materials and fuels that they do, for inhabiting areas that most urban elites would never even fly over if they had a choice, for keeping those old churches open and traditional cultural practices going, maybe then I’ll see it your way. But since you tend to use rural white in political terms, that is as GOP idiots, I tend to rile when you use it.
Well, this rural white has to go move more sheep poop, hang some laundry on the line and work on a tractor. No time today to watch NASCAR, eat pork rinds, attend a KKK rally or plot the overthrow of the gov’t.
well bret, i think it really might be edifying for you to go back through some of those old posts to see the kinds of things brian has been writing (hint: try a google site search). when you write
Suffice it to say that when Brian says “rural white’ he means uneducated, racist hicks, you know- clinging to their God and their guns
well, no, actually i’m positive he means nothing of the sort. this is just pure projection on your part. it’s long past time for you and your conservative travelers to get over the victimization.
Well this is cool! The NEW IMPROVED In Box has a search feature. I was able to locate my favorite “rural white” definition from Brian-
“Urban Americans, on average, are far more productive, entrepreneurial and well-educated than rural Americans.
They use fewer government services, on average, and pay far more in taxes. (A lot of those taxes are siphoned off and spent in rural communities.)
Rural folks, meanwhile, have problems with drugs, unemployment, and single-parenthood that often resemble those of inner city families.”
So there we go. Rural whites are unemployed (welfare rat) druggies with no education who don’t pay any taxes and are apparently breeding like rabbits. Probably all they know how to do. But wait! There’s more-
“This wholesale transition in power –symbolized by Barack Obama — is frightening for millions of whites, rural whites in particular.”
Well dang! They’re racists too! Good thing the respectful nuance was so apparent.
Not to worry, Brian makes it all better at the end-
“The town-hall movement that Brooks acknowledges as “ill-mannered and conspiratorial” could very easily become something far worse.”
Oh crap! They’re scary revolutionaries too!!!!!
I’m sorry. When I read this I don’t see anything respectful or nuanced in that. What I see is class warfare of a sort. Urban vs rural. It’s abundantly clear where Brian sits in that war. Last time I checked bigotry was
“a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.”
I will readily admit to being bigoted in favor of rural whites, especially the hard working, tax paying, simple rural whites I’ve known all my life. And I am bigoted against urban elitists that make fun of and look down on anyone who,”…buys their suits off the rack at Sears, ha, ha, ha!” to quote Mario Cuomo. The rural whites, WE, aren’t perfect, but we aren’t the low life, mouth breathing, plant life IQ scum Brian makes us out to be either.
So please, tell me why Brians form of bigotry is acceptable, worthy even, while my irrational bigotry is nothing more than pure projection of victimization?
Bret –
A couple of points. First, this is better. It’s an argument. What you wrote before was unacceptable and vile. If you want to keep bringing it up, I’ll keep saying it: your language was brutally racist, misogynistic and — given that I think it was meant as humor — unfunny.
Now to your argument.
You go through the In Box and find places where I make arguments about rural white culture. Arguments, by the way, which are reasonable and — in my opinion — fair-minded.
By excerpting them in this fashion, you try to build an argument about my mindset.
What you fail to do is quote sections of the blog where I write warmly, sympathetically, loyally about rural white culture.
Where I describe my own childhood in rural America. Where I admit my own long friendship with the head of the North Country’s tea party movement.
Where I blog about the need for better advocacy for our rural towns.
Where I raise fears about declining populations and shrinking schools in our communities.
Where I argue with those who paint inaccurately rosy pictures of our rural economies.
You also overlook the fact that the In Box has become a primary discussion point for people involved in searching for alternative economic ideas for our small towns
Do I believe that rural whites have emerged as the cornerstone of national conservatism? Yes. I think the facts bear that out.
Do I think there are elements of the movement that are motivated by race fear? I do.
The chairman of the Republican Party acknowledged just last week that the GOP had worked deliberately to use that energy, by adopting what’s know as the Southern Strategy.
Am I bigoted for discussing these issues in the larger context of our small town culture? Of course not.
Brian, NCPR
But Brian- you don’t use the term “rural whites” when you “write warmly”. Your use of the term “rural whites’ is limited to negative connotations. There’s my beef. I’m sorry, but as a life long rural person who had the misfortune to be born white (I’m also male and bald- 2 more strikes) I see you creating a political/social group with the term. And it’s inaccurate too. I would put money on the fact most of your listeners are white and the vast majority would fit Marios definition of rural. But they aren’t uneducated druggies living on welfare, are they? That’s why I asked if there wasn’t a better term you could come up with to describe the group you’re talking about. The tone you set implies “rural whites” are in fact the mouth breathing Deliverance types I mentioned. That’s where I was going with my post referencing trailers, lynchings and incestuous relationships. That is how your term comes across. It would be more accurate and honest to say “conservative Americans” or “rural conservatives” or “unemployed white welfare recipients” or something more accurate. I’m pretty sure if you said “inner city blacks” and someone objected you’d give it a bit more thought. The group you’re trying to address isn’t made up of just whites or people on a farm or ranch 100 miles from nowhere. It’s just inaccurate in addition to being insulting.
So you create two groups Brian- rural whites and urban Americans, but both groups are inaccurate in the extreme. You don’t even give the rurals the title American, what tone does that set? It’s just part of the politically correct mindset you’re stuck with. I can 100% guarantee you that if I came here and proposed the idea that African American History month or Hispanic Pride parades should be outlawed as racist and divisive I’d be skewered and roasted to a turn. But if I came here and suggested we establish a white history month or a White Pride parade I’d get the same answer! Do you see the issue? Whether it’s your rural whites or the media calling Tea Party members violent revolutionaries with out basis while completely ignoring and in fact supporting and glorifying Rap stars who use racist, bigoted, phrases and condoning and glorifying violence against whites, women, etc., we have an issue! Where is the honesty, to say nothing of fairness in this?
I’m sorry if my other post got to you, but frankly you’ve ignored other questions I’ve asked that I thought were very fair. Sometimes you have to rattle the cage to get the gorillas attention.
BTW- The Tea Party has no “head”, that’s the only reason we still exist. No central organization for the libs and progressives in the media to concentrate on and attack and destroy.
And please- don’t put me in the RNC crowd. Steele is part of the problem, not the solution.
Brian? Hellllooooo…….