the welcome candor of kevin phillips
As a Southerner who has spent a decade writing about the Southernization of American politics, I feel compelled to defend Kevin Phillips from the implication in some quarters that he is, as it were, a xenophobic Yankee South-basher. There are xenophobic Yankee South-bashers, of course, though most of them nowadays denounce a much more amorphous and arguably nonexistent cultural region, "Red State America." But Phillips is a careful researcher who understands that American national politics has always been driven less by ideology or class than by the tribal factors of race, religion and region.
To point out this obvious fact, however, is to violate a media taboo.
The media taboo is the one that prevents the candid discussion of regional culture, religion or ethnicity as an influence on American politicians. Instead, we are supposed to pretend that political debate is a graduate school seminar among identical generic Americans who adopt particular political philosophies for mysterious reasons that have nothing to do with ascriptive identity. It is considered impolite if not bigoted, for example, to suggest that an Irish-American politician might be influenced by ethnicity in thinking about Ireland, or that there might be any connection between Quaker upbringing and views of the legitimacy of force.
While discussions of the influence of personal identity on political views are off limits, discussions of economic interest are considered fair game. Thus the same journalists who shy away from discussing a politician's cultural background do not hesitate to report on the possible influence of personal profit on his or her policies.
We have seen this double standard in the case of Tom DeLay. Contrast the amount of ink that has been spilled on DeLay's business and lobbying connections to that devoted to his religious worldview and East Texas subculture. But Tom DeLay did not fly to Israel and tell the Knesset he considered himself an Israeli for economic reasons or even cynical electoral reasons. You have to understand Southern Christian Zionism to understand him.
I've worked with politicians in Texas and Washington and abroad, and in my experience a politician's worldview is the most important factor in his or her policy. And most politicians, like most people, absorb their worldviews from the communities in which they grow up.
To understand Massachusetts politicians, study Massachusetts. To understand Texas politicians, study Texas. If you try to understand American politics as a philosophical debate between "left" and "right," you will go crazy. It all makes sense, however, if you see it as a struggle of shifting coalitions of ethnic groups and regions--Northeast and Midwest, South and Pacific Coast, Latinos and Jews, evangelicals and Catholics, whites and blacks. The striking correlation between ethnicity and partisanship--between being black or Jewish and being Democratic, for example, or between being a white Southern Protestant and being Republican--is impossible to explain in terms of individually-chosen ideology or even class interest, because ethnic groups and regions in the U.S. tend to vote as blocs, regardless of income.
Kevin Phillips understands the nonrational tribal factors that drive regional and national politics in the U.S., and he is impolite enough to discuss them. For which candor, whether we agree with all of his conclusions or not, we should be grateful.
Comments (19)
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Thank YOU!
I got pilloried. I got called a damn Yankee - not in so many words or so few to be precise
Southerners sure are defensive, and I understand that too. Case in point....my best college bud was my freshman roomate at Tulane. He from Philadelphia suburbs. Me from small town Lousiiana. We exchanged letters before meeting for the first time September 1969
After about 5 minutes "Boy am I relieved"
I asked what he meant.
"I am a liberal Jew from Philadelphia. I told my mother that maybe I should pack the white sheets"
I'd never met a Jew and was every bit the liberal he was
March 22, 2006 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the point--all politics and politicians are creations of their local environments, and Kevin Phillips is an astute observer of regional, tribal and religious groups-- but how many more blatant "buy Kevin's new book" commercials are we going to read on this site. Shouldn't there at least there be some announcement that we are reading an obvious advertizement.
I am not convinced that after two world wars, 60 years of mass radio and television media, 100 years of hollywood entertainment industry, the civil rights movement, the cold war and the internet America is still racked by regionalism. In fact I think America has developed a pretty broadbased general cultural identity. Frankly, the differences between red state Americans and blue state Americans are less than a lot of folks think.
Ron Byers
March 22, 2006 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is considered impolite if not bigoted, for example, to suggest that an Irish-American politician might be influenced by ethnicity in thinking about Ireland, or that there might be any connection between Quaker upbringing and views of the legitimacy of force.
What utter nonsense. Michael Lind has written some perceptive things, but this post is not one of them. Kerry's Jewish-born Catholic-convert grandfather, Massachussetts upbringing and year in a Swiss boarding school; Bush's Connecticut blue-blood prep-school roots and wilful adoption of a Texas oilman/rancher identity; Lieberman's Orthodox Jewishness; Barack Obama's Kenyan father and Hawaii childhood - what of all this have we not heard about? What ethnic, regional or religious influences have been suppressed in the media? Lind's supposed taboo on talking about these influences is about as real as the War on Christmas.
And Lind's argument that the Vietnam War was a good thing is a load of crap too.
March 22, 2006 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not convinced that after two world wars, 60 years of mass radio and television media, 100 years of hollywood entertainment industry, the civil rights movement, the cold war and the internet America is still racked by regionalism. In fact I think America has developed a pretty broadbased general cultural identity. Frankly, the differences between red state Americans and blue state Americans are less than a lot of folks think."
Yes - but isn't the point that there are many sub-identities that do not feel adequately represented by that new 'broadbased general cultural identity?' We hear that message frequently it seems - case in point: conservatives bristling at the mythical "liberal, secular, pro-gay national identity" being "thrust upon them".
We may think they're a bit wacko for being so paranoid, but those who subjectively feel under-represented by the dominant cultural identity are always quite likely to rebel against it in all kinds of ways that we who feel at home in that general identity find strange and perhaps unpredictable.
Voteless In DC
March 22, 2006 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
brooks -
Michael has moved away from adjectives to describe an individual:
His analysis and comments on Kevin Phillips are the identities of groups and what of that group becomes distinguising in tems of interests, beliefs etc.
What he points to is the trickiness of discussing group identities without creating binding generalizations that ignore individuals. The other trap is of the outsider picking the relevant label - am I most driven by my political leanings, my ethnic background, where I live, religion, gender or age.
March 22, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody feels under-represented by the dominant cultural identity. Personally for the last 5 years I have faguely felt oppressed by the Houston culture dominating Washington.
The problem with that feeling and your argument is that it over states minor differences and allows those claiming to be victims of the dominant culture (whether it is actually dominant or not) an unacceptable excuse for not thinking.
Ron Byers
March 22, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael
Without denying that where a politician comes from effects their views what is the impact of the two great Twentieth Century migrations in this country. The move of Blacks from the South to the cities of the North and the continuing move of Americans to the Sunbelt?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
March 22, 2006 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me it seems more of a defense of the need to marginalize and thereby manipulate.
Nixon's campaign was based on seeding divides, exploiting and increasing fears, insecurities of race and ideology. He suceeded to a certain extent based on that. Reagan's was a continuation of that theme... though expanded to include a sharply defined class strategy.
Reducing everything to the margins does little to bring about positive change, all it does acheive is disintegration.
What I find fascinating is both political extremes attempts to exploit race, class, religion and the perceptions of them.
When either extreme start an attack on Barack Obama, they always say he grew up in Hawaii, why? His family wasn't wealthy, his parents moved there for opportunity. His mother was from Kansas, his father was from a small Kenyan village. Both extremes seek to paint those humble roots as somehow a prop, to discredit his sincerity on the issues. they don't want any significance paid to the man's actual achievements.
John Kerry, both extremes always like to paint him in terms of wealth, Massachusetts, boarding and private schools, why? We know he wasn't born and raised with wealth. His dad was in the Air Force, his mother while born to a wealthy family, had no money of her own, she was a housewife and teacher. A wealthy aunt helped pay for that boarding school when his father went into governmental service. It's also an established fact that he worked his way through college unloading trucks, delivering groceries, not just relying on help from an affluent relative. Even his service is discredited by both extremes, each for the same reason. to discredit him, both seek to create negative connotations based on what the images bring to mind. Thereby impuning any credibility of his actions in the senate, or during the presidential campaign.
I think Americans want discussions of issues of substance, We're sick to death of being put in little boxes and labeled, we were alot healthier and stronger a nation before the '80s.. we'll only heal by rejecting stereotypes and bridging divides
March 22, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only disagreement I might have had with Lind's argument was the idea that there is some sort of collective denial of the differences he lists. But then I read the comments. I withdraw my sole complaint and wonder instead how many folks have lived in different parts of the country -- and I don't mean the Northeast and Northern California or Seattle ... or even Austin.
I'm also surprised by MaryfromRI's claim that Nixon sowed seeds of discord. Rather, he harvested a field that the Democrats had left untended once LBJ signed on to the Great Society. Tricky did not invent Southern conservatism or racism. But he did recognize that the Great Society would look like the Second Reconstruction to Southerners who had reliably voted Democrat because Lincoln freed the slaves. Now that a Democrat was re-freeing them, Dickie decided not to cede those votes to the Dixiecrat, and he knew that while Lyndon might still have drawn votes as a Sotherner, Hubert as a Northerner sure wouldn't.
March 22, 2006 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
ron - have you lived in different regions of the US and amongst various peoples?
When you dismiss the red-blue state analysis you are correct, but in a different way. The analysis has to be done for different strata. When you downplay the differences between people in the US you are not looking from the point of view of "different" people and therefore you will miss what is important to each.
If you question a Southern identity you will not understand the reaction of those in SW Virginia to first hearing my New England voice. They would immediately remark that I was a damnyankee, that was 1 word and they did not like them. Southerners often recoiled at my straightforward language since the "some folks say" indirect language was the proper way to address one another and speak of one another. When I lived in the Rocky Mountain West locals very much saw themselves as different than those of either coast. When I talk with Mormons they very much see themselves as Christians while non-Mormon Christians are not equally sure. When a black executive in the corporate world tells me that every time he walks into a new room he automatically notes how many people of color there are in the room then I know that being an American is not a single amorphous identity.
To understand one another and to build political coalitions we need to understand what identities matter to those who hold them. Kevin does us a service but we still need the analysis from those who are inside the "identity."
March 22, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: your last paragraph, yeah, but we also have to understand that some of these are perceptions, not accurate identities, and that these stereotypes actually feed negative perceptions, back and forth... actually increasing and cementing division.
March 22, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary -
Not sure if you are speaking of perceptions and identities as held by those on the inside or the perceptions of those on the outside??
I don't see identities as a division amongst people, unless we make them so. For each of us that holds onto certain of our identities they provide a foundation, are part of who we are. If we use the identities to exclude others then what has value becomes a weapon.
March 22, 2006 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have to blame Nixon still. At the time the establishment Republicans, call them the Rockefeller Reps, the Chamber of Commerce Reps, or The Northeastern Reps, or whatever you want, but essentially the descendants of Eisenhower and the party he represented had all pretty much gotten on board with Civil Rights. Nixon could have diffused the issue and isolated the Southern Racists as essentially the crazy uncle that neither party wanted. But he choose instead to exploit the issue and perfected the Southern Strategy.
As famously caught on tape they knew they would divide the country but were sure they would have the bigger half.
March 22, 2006 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
sinceimust, I must ask that you identify "the field that democrats had left unharvested once LBJ signed on to the Great Society" as you put it, with some detail please. I'd like to hear a more openly honest representation of your snarkiness.
Racism wasn't and still isn't restricted to the south, and there does happen to be racism, and classism on the far left, subtle, well hidden, but still there.
I've lived all over the country, and not in California or Seattle, Washington. I've lived in Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Florida and New Mexico.
March 22, 2006 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of oversimplifying I would like to posit that there are three main strains in the South. The conservative, racist, "redneck", the more progressive modern southerner and the blacks. Over the past several decades there has been an influx into the South from elsewhere. Presumably these people came with the attitudes of the place the grew up in. If this is the case, why is it that the redneck attitude hasn't become more marginalized?
Instead it appears that many who move in become more conservative as do their children. If this isn't so where is the power of the conservative southern religious right coming from? The megachurches are new and they are getting their members from someplace. Older denominations are declining at the same time.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 22, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
sinceimust -
You asked. I have lived in NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, Wash DC, VA (well beyond greater DC), Idaho. I have lived in towns of a few thousand, suburbs, small cities of 50,000 and cities in the hundreds of thousands and millions. I have been part of majority groups in some places and distinct minorities in others (groupings of political party, religion, ethnicity, education level, etc.). I have been an insider and a distinct outsider.
March 22, 2006 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon's campaign called it his "Southern Strategy." It is to that that I referred.
March 23, 2006 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you discount the impact of regionalism too much. Howard Dean was correct when he told those pickup truck driving, confederate flag carrying rednecks, that they were slicing their own economic necks by allowing politicians to divide them on race when all Americans regardless of color who are part of the middle class were being squeezed by GOP policies.
Regionalism is alive and well and it changes votes.
March 23, 2006 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can say that I have. I have lived on the West Coast, East Coast and Midwest. I have not resided in the South. Based on the entirelly different cultures, in each region, in terms of social, educatinal and political issues...I wholeheartedly agree with what Lind wrote.
Point of fact, there is a rrelocation truism for corporate orphans in terms of what to expect 'socially' , when it comes to fitting in, depending on which region of the country you are in, and what they value when assessing if you are 'one of them'.....it goes something like this.
On the West Coast the question is 'what kinda car do you drive" becasue discretionary income is judged by your auto, since housing is too expensive to be a reliable judge.
On the East Coast the question is 'where did you go to school?" because that region values education over money. Good manners, and intellect will take you where money won't.
In the MidWest, the question is 'where do you live'..housing is afforadable and where you live is important in terms of community values and what you want out of life.
In the South, the question is 'who's your momma and daddy'...in the south pedigree is everything..if they have no clue who your family is..you are a mutt...no matter how much they oooze southern charm and hospitality..you are an outsider, and no amount of money will make you an insider...it is all about family.
Understanding these regional 'identities' means that the last place you want to live is in the South, unless you have family there.
Which is precisely why we refused to relocate there....and be treated like second class citizens for the most part. It is not overt but very covert...your kids are suspect cause their mommy and daddy are unknowns.
March 23, 2006 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink