You might be a redneck if you think a stock tip is
advice on worming your hogs. Or you might be a redneck if you go to church on Sunday and vote for Republicans. At least, that is how Rep. Adam Putnam sees it.
“White rednecks” who “didn’t show up to vote for us” partly cost GOPers their cong. majorities, Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) told fellow Republicans today. And Putnam, seeking the post of GOP conference chair, chided ex-Chair J.C. Watts (R-OK) for ruining the conference’s ability to serve its members.
Three Republicans in the room independently confirmed to the Hotline the substance and context of Putnam’s remarks. But Putnam’s chief of staff insists that the remarks were taken out of context.
Now if you think ‘genitalia’ is an Italian airline you might be a redneck. And you might vote Republican. And if the Halloween pumpkin on your front porch has more teeth than your wife, I am pretty sure you tend to vote Republican. And you might be a Republican.
But the real question is ‘why the rednecks didn’t come out and vote for the Republicans this year?’
Could it be this?
It is true that the new Democrats are more conservative, but not across the board on all issues. Indeed, the interesting thing is that a new type of Democrat has emerged that may significantly alter the political landscape for years to come. That person is hard right on social issues, but hard left on economics.
Typical of the new breed is Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, who was just elected to the House of Representatives. Ellsworth writes on his Web site that he regularly attends church and that the “lessons I learned in church have helped guide my life.” This connection informs his discussion of family values: “I believe in justice, I believe in hope, I believe in salvation, and I believe in the value of life.”
But on economics, Ellsworth sounds like anything but a right winger. He derides “bad” free-trade deals as a giveaway to corporations, and rails against the privatization of Social Security. Does such a person make it easier for the president to work with Congress next year to overhaul Social Security? I don’t think so.
Heath Shuler of North Carolina writes on his site that he is a “pro-life Democrat” and that “all life is sacred.” Yet on economic issues, he sounds much like Nancy Pelosi. He criticizes free trade and calls ominously for “fair trade,” and — sound familiar? — opposes privatization of Social Security. Fair trade is a catch phrase for the kind of free-trade obstructionism practiced by labor unions and anti-globalization ideologues.
Ellsworth and Shuler appear to have been formed by the same cookie cutter that delivered countless new candidates to the Democratic Party. Click on the issues pages of their Web sites, and you find mostly the same topics and positions. The same is true of many others, such as Baron Hill of Indiana who is also pro-life but opposes “regressive” tax cuts and Social Security privatization.
President Bill Clinton rose to power in 1992 by leaning in the conservative direction on economics, advocating free trade and middle-class tax cuts, but he was silent on social issues. Today’s triangulators are taking the opposite tack.
The emergence of this new type of Democrat may have much more far-reaching consequences than you might have thought if you bought the spin that this election was just about Iraq.
The problem with Clinton’s triangulation was that too much of the Democratic Party was emotionally vested in traditional populism. As soon as Al Gore took over and ran for president, the rhetoric that appealed to economic conservatives was dropped.
It may be that it is easier for the party to find a place for people like this, especially since social issues are addressed so infrequently by legislation.
After Clinton, the Republicans built a majority out of a coalition of religious and economic conservatives. But Christian believers, just like Christian voters, need not be economically conservative. Indeed, we have now learned that the Democrats can be successful if they offer up candidates in the Bible belt who follow their party line on economics, all the while espousing religious devotion.
As we look at the next two years, it seems unlikely that much middle ground will be explored. First, there is no middle ground on social issues. Abortion is murder, or it isn’t. There often is middle ground on economics, but the two sides are as far apart as ever.
Looking beyond the next two years, it seems likely that this development could magnify the political might of Democrats. That could have an enormous effect on tax, entitlement and trade policies. Taxes will go up, entitlements will continue to expand, and free trade will gradually give way to “fair” trade.
Such can’t possibly be characterized as a drift to the right economically, and that is the real news of this election.
The whole premise of the New Democrats was to get away from economic populism and embrace a pro-corporate agenda. That has paid dividends in the northeastern suburbs, as evidenced by recent sweeps in Philly and Connecticut. But it has killed off the Democratic Party in the south, where the DLC got its start. Ironic, isn’t it?
Democrats won elections in Kansas, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina by reviving economic populism. It has Bloomberg and other Wall Streeters kind of rattled.
The question is what it means for the Democrats to have ‘rednecks’ coming back into the party? Now a redneck might think the stock market
has fence around it, but they also might think its a fun idea to tie gay people to their pick-up truck and go for a spin.
I think it is a symptom of a basic realignment in this country. The Dems have taken over the suburbs in much of the country. They are gaining strength in rural areas. The Republicans are still strong in the exurbs, and they still have a lot of strength among evangelicals.
It’s just a hunch, but I think Guiliani’s campaign for President might do better than expected and it could herald a further realignment, with social conservatives splitting their votes as they respond less to culture war issues and more to economic ones. This same feature would then lead to a revitalization of anti-populist social progressives coming back to the GOP.
It’s hard to say right now, though. Right now, Christopher Shays is the only Republican congressperson left in New England. It will be a long way back for the Rockefeller Republicans.
Oh, and if you think loading the dishwasher
means getting your wife drunk, you might be a redneck.
