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.
Well the GOPERS are screwing the farmers too…We want family farms, not some giant corporate farm.
The GOPERS forgot the old addage: Pigs live..Hogs get slaughtered.
The “family farm” is mostly going to be useful as one of the Rovian Congressional Bill titles, if the Repubs had their way. Huge factory farms. Waste ponds so big they’ll be naming them next (Bush Memorial Pigcrapus Pond, etc.). But here and there, a “living history” farm to remind people what farms used to look like in the wayback.
I guess Republicans have disdain for the ordinary American if she votes with her economic interests in mind.
J.C. Watt retired about 4 years ago, correct? So how did he “ruin” he conference’s ability to serve its members? Isn’t Deborah Pryce, the current chair, if true?
Of course, I don’t care that they’re screaming at each other; they can have at it. Watt–someone not even in the Congress, fer cryin’ out loud–is just a very curious person to focus on, IMO.
Indeed, it is. Perhaps it is Watt’s race.
He’s a Young Americans for Freedom lookin’ little putz.
… they never came out and it was all corporate media hype to masquerade vote theft when you know the Republican controlled Congress won’t investigate your crimes.
It’s harder to steal an election when it is clear that the House will go Democrat and John Conyers will have subpoena power.
Then you have to decide if you are really willing to go to prison or not.
I notice Ellen Tauscher’s New Democrat Coalition website advocates for “corporate citizenship and government accountability.” So it seems she is continuing the Clintonian legacy. Brad Ellsworth is not a member, while Heath Schuler is. This I find interesting. Perhaps Clintonian economics as rehashed and revisited by Ellen Tauscher, who can lose a little bit of weight, does not appeal to Ellsworth. But it does appeal to the following:
Corporate citizenship? No thank you. But I guess these people believe corporations should come before country, ethnicity and all those other forms of identification that define us.
A lot of rednecks were Democrats who followed the siren song of Reagans “smaller government means less taxes means more money in your pocket even though you are making less”. A lot of rednecks realize that they’ve been scammed by the Republicans. A lot of rednecks aren’t that upset by race anymore, but they are damned well upset that their jobs are disappearing and some Republican businessman always seems to be behind it. Rednecks in Western NC voted for Shuler, among other reasons, because they are honest and Charles Taylor wasn’t and because Charles Taylor wanted to sell off public lands that a lot of them depend on for timber and tourism.
There are only a certain breed of redneck who wants to tie a gay guy to a pickup truck and take for a spin. And that type doesn’t vote. The ones that do are those Republicanized Christians, but they are a minority as well.
And if you think Democrats can win in the South, you might be a redneck.