The Conscience of a Liberal

David Kennedy got the assignment to review Paul Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal and he didn't like it very much. One argument he makes is, however, a good jumping-off point for further discussion:

For this dismal state of affairs the Democratic Party is held to be blameless. Never mind the Democrats’ embrace of inherently divisive identity politics, or Democratic condescension toward the ungrammatical yokels who consider their spiritual and moral commitments no less important than the minimum wage or the Endangered Species Act, nor even the Democrats’ vulnerable post-Vietnam record on national security. As Krugman sees it, the modern Republican Party has been taken over by radicals. “There hasn’t been any corresponding radicalization of the Democratic Party, so the right-wing takeover of the G.O.P. is the underlying cause of today’s bitter partisanship.” No two to tango for him. The ascendancy of modern conservatism is “an almost embarrassingly simple story,” he says, and race is the key. “Much of the whole phenomenon can be summed up in just five words: Southern whites started voting Republican. ... End of story.”

A fuller and more nuanced story might at least gesture toward the role that environmental and natural-resource issues have played in making red-state country out of the interior West, not to mention the unsettling effects of the “value issues” on voters well beyond Dixie. And as for national security — well, as Krugman sees things, it was not Democratic bungling in the Iranian hostage crisis or humiliation in Somalia or feeble responses to the first bombing attack on the World Trade Center or the assault on the U.S.S. Cole, but the runaway popularity of the Rambo films (I’m not making this up) that hoodwinked the public into believing that the party of Carter and Clinton (not to mention McGovern and Kucinich) might not be the most steadfast guardian of the Republic’s safety.

There are a number of ways one could respond to this, but I think the best thing to say is that Kennedy and Krugman are talking at cross-purposes here. Krugman's task isn't to explain why the Republican Party can win elections, it's too explain why a plutocratic political program can succeed. Back during the era of consensus politics, after all, the GOP won big electoral victories in 1952 and 1956 by nominating a popular general, by painting the Democrats as soft as defense, etc. And in 1960 they came very close to winning by arguing that Richard Nixon had the experience necessary to steer the ship of state in troubled times. What they didn't do, however, was advance an economic policy agenda focused on serving the interests of 5 percent of the country at the expense of the interests of 80 percent of the country.

Or to put it another way, what makes America weird isn't that we have a conservative political party (they have 'em everywhere) or that the conservative political party succeeds at winning elections (happens in England, Canada, France, Italy, etc. all the time) but that the conservative political party is so unreconciled to the modern welfare state. That's what's weird. It isn't true of major political parties outside the United States, and for a while it wasn't true of the United States either.

In other words, we could have a politics where the parties disagreed about a lot of stuff -- abortion, gay rights, tradeoffs between environmental protection and economic growth, foreign policy, crime control, paternalistic public health measures, etc. -- while operating from within a broad consensus about the need for a robust public sector commitment to universal social insurance programs and basic public services.

Krugman believes that racial divisions explain that -- the absence of a generous welfare state, the ability of a major political party to remain so relentlessly focused on the interests of a small minority of the population.

And if the flaw in Krugman's book is that he doesn't take the time to respectfully air popular alternative theses and rebut them (and he really doesn't), its virtue is precisely that the book deals with the big picture of American politics over the decades, focusing on broad macro trends in the economy and the political system rather than campaign tactics or the controversies of the day. He puts forth substantial empirical data showing a very tight link between race -- and racial attitudes -- and voting behavior, particularly the willingness of non-poor white southerners (but, crucially, not Dixie's worst-off white folks) to vote very conservatively.

And of course it's easy to do a thought experiment in which blacks and latinos go from being about 10 percent of the electorate each to being about 20 percent each and ask yourself what would happen to the Republican Party. Well, it would lose all the elections. Unless, of course, it could broaden its popularity to minority voters. Such appeals would focus, naturally, on the large traditionalist segments of the black and latino populations. But right now, appeals of that sort largely fall on deaf appears. But perhaps a GOP that wasn't as relentlessly hostile to the economic interests of the non-elite would have much more success.

Indeed, I'd say that's probably where we're going. George W. Bush's efforts to broaden Republican appeal to include minority voters and build an enduring Republican majority failed. He was able, however, to eke out majorities based on mobilizing white Christian identity sentiments (with national security issues playing a large role in helping him do so) combined with generous financial backing from corporate managers and so forth. But the initial analysis that this wouldn't be adequate over the long-run was, of course, correct -- the white Christian share of the electorate is shrinking -- and the post-9/11 boom in nationalist sentiment wasn't bound to last forever. And it turns out that traditionalism alone isn't good enough to make non-whites want to vote Republican. To succeed over the long run, they'll probably need to moderate their economic agenda.

Comments

I don't think Kennedy's criticism is compelling at all. The "Democratic embrace of inherently divisive identity politics, or Democratic condescension toward the ungrammatical yokels who consider their spiritual and moral commitments no less important than the minimum wage or the Endangered Species Act?" What is he talking about? Championing the rights of the oppressed, the downtrodden is "inherently divisive?" I suppose Mr. Kennedy feels that progressive taxation is inherently divisive?

So much of what Mr. Kennedy asserts is simply right-wing doggerel -- the Democratic bungling of the Iranian hostage crisis, weakness on defense following Viet Nam, for example.

Why won't the NY Times commit itself to reporting things that are true and eschewing things that are not? Oh wait -- I know: the owners are morons.

Posted by Jim Pharo | October 21, 2007 10:25 AM

What struck me in the review also was the given as fact "reality" of the Democratic "bungling" of the Iranian hostage crisis, the "humiliation" in Somalia and the "feeble" response to WTC 1 and the Cole. Compared with what? Reagan's "success" in selling arms to Iran in getting some help in releasing some hostages? The "success" in suffering the loss of Marines in Lebanon? The plotters of WTC were convicted and put in jail. Why is that feeble? The cole happened right around the 2000 election. Two of the biggest foreign policy challenges of Clinton's term were the disintegration and ethnic wars in the Balkans and Haiti. I'd say the Democrats passed those with flying colors.
Part of the plutocratic party's success is dominance of the media narrative, consolidation of media, denigration of factual news and funding of the hack gap. They may have just about used up people's trust in the media though, and perhaps the effectiveness of that strategy is self limiting as well.

Posted by Doug | October 21, 2007 10:29 AM

And of course it's easy to do a thought experiment in which blacks and latinos go from being about 10 percent of the electorate each to being about 20 percent each and ask yourself what would happen to the Republican Party. Well, it would lose all the elections.

Or pick up a more significant share of the white vote. I think African-Americans make up 40% of the electorate in one or two of the Deep South states, and yet they win at the federal level consistently.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 21, 2007 10:33 AM

"that the conservative political party is so unreconciled to the modern welfare state. That's what's weird. It isn't true of major political parties outside the United States, and for a while it wasn't true of the United States either."

And so it will continue to be true until the Dems manage to win multiple elections by criticizing the GOP on these very grounds.

That's one of the big reasons why Edwards is a game-changer.

Posted by Petey | October 21, 2007 10:33 AM

"But right now, appeals of that sort largely fall on deaf appears." If there was a contest, I would nominated "fall on deaf appears" as the greatest Yglesias typo ever. What makes it magical is that it could actually be a suggestive quasi-pun: the appeals apparantly fall on deaf ears or maybe the appeals only have an apparant reality and no subtance. Really, it's almost worthy of James Joyce.

As to the substance: sure, race is a huge factor. But there are other sources to American exceptionalism. Back in the 1930s, the American right (which was then no more racist than the mainstream of the Democratic party, maybe less so) was still adamently opposed to the New Deal. This was very different than the European right, which dealt with the threat of worker's militancy by creating a form of right-wing socialism that merged a paternalist state with nationalism. Why the difference? I'd say it's time to re-read Seymour Martin Lipset on America's Lockean roots and lack of an aristocratic tradition.

It's also the case that we Canadian lucky to export all it's crazy righties to the United States. Father Coughlin, Lionel Tiger, David Frum, Daniel Casse, Peter Brimlow, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Steyn. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. (The only conservative I wish had stayed in Canada is Hugh Kenner).

Posted by Jeet Heer | October 21, 2007 10:39 AM

I had thought Kennedy was pretty good when I read his book, but I have to say he comes across as quite obtuse in his review. For example, as others have pointed out, no objective observer could line up the pluses and minuses on national security post Vietnam - either to 2001 or to the present - and not conclude that the Democrats do better. That leaves Kennedy as someone who believes everything he reads in the papers.

Posted by peter | October 21, 2007 10:43 AM

It was pretty jarring to read the cartoonish first paragraph and then the next one leads off with a wish for a "more nuanced story".

I suggest everyone see Who Killed Roger Rabbit again and relearn the lessons about hanging out in Toon Town. To wit, you can't win an argument there.

Posted by rapier | October 21, 2007 10:44 AM

If Krugman's central thesis is that race is what's the main reason for the Republican party's electoral success he has good ground to stand on; a good chunk of the political science literature I am aware of indeed points out race and the south as the main reasons. The alternative explanation usually offered is abortion.

I would like to disagree though with Matt's analysis of the welfare state. This to me is a political economy and an international relations problem. It is also a chicken and egg problem. Why? Because one reason the welfare state is so strong in Europe - and thus accepted by conservative parties- is the fact that it was built during a time when the US offered a security umbrella which makes European defense expenditure low as a percentage of the GDP. Having a welfare state also generates important electoral constituencies which can conserve it on election time. In the US, the contrary happens. Because the US was a superpower, after 1945 she spent a more than fair share of her GDP on defense expenditures. This in turn created also important constituencies and special interests with an eye towards conserving; it's also an institutional factor that makes the US more likely to engage in military operations which in turn makes the issue of "defense" and hawkish policy an important issue in most US elections.

Not to mention that in both cases, the tilting of expenditures toward one direction makes expenditures on the other one forbiddingly expensive.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | October 21, 2007 10:47 AM

Matthew,

There's nothing weird about the modern conservative attitude when you realize that their mission in life is to overturn the entire Enlightenment. I strongly suggest you read the famous Wedge document put out by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture before you decide I'm being hyperbolic.

By "liberal" these people literally mean those who think the Enlightenment philosophy was a pretty good basis for constructing a decent society. Some movement cons are theocrats, it is true. Others, however, are modern versions of royalists.

Posted by tristero | October 21, 2007 10:53 AM

"I don't think Kennedy's criticism is compelling at all."

Nor is it original. Every book review written about liberalism is critical of the author's failure to recount and agree with right wing talking points.

Some of his claims seem like he didn't think about it much. Does he think Clinton embracing a open-ended commitment to turning around Somalia would have helped the Democrats win in 1994. The U.S. Cole attack was a legitimate failure, but it's not plausible to believe it was on the minds of voters in 2000. The whole 'post vietnam national security' idea is half baked. Everybody (that write about national security in MSM) remembers losing in 1972 with a dovish candidate, but losing with a relatively hawkish candidate in 1968 isn't on the radar. Reading stuff like this you'd get the idea the general public wanted to stay in Vietnam forever.

If LBJ had been willing to take some heat for being dovish on Vietnam in 1965 the Democrats would have been a lot better off in 1968 and after.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | October 21, 2007 11:00 AM

"In other words, we could have a politics where the parties disagreed about a lot of stuff -- abortion, gay rights, tradeoffs between environmental protection and economic growth, foreign policy, crime control, paternalistic public health measures, etc. -- while operating from within a broad consensus about the need for a robust public sector commitment to universal social insurance programs and basic public services."

Just because you can't understand the problems with a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean that other people can't. We don't want a large welfare state because a large welfare state assumes a constantly growing tax base. If you don't have a large and growing population, it eventually runs into trouble. See France and Germany, for examples.

Posted by James Robertson | October 21, 2007 11:10 AM

"The U.S. Cole attack was a legitimate failure"

by whom? by the Democrats? by the Pentagon's rules of engagement? Do those change with every administration? What was the failure exactly? Was the attack on the Stark a similar failure? The lack of response a failure, perhaps, but it took a little while before it was determined who was at fault. The attack happened on October 12, 2000, with just 13 weeks left in the Clinton administration. The administration that had the evidence that Al-Qaeda was responsible was Republican.

The Cole is another right wing talking point that has no coherence.

Posted by doug | October 21, 2007 11:48 AM

Championing the rights of the oppressed, the downtrodden is "inherently divisive?"

Identity politics is inherently divisive and often has little to do with the oppressed and downtrodden.

Posted by abb1 | October 21, 2007 11:49 AM

It's also the case that we Canadian lucky to export all it's crazy righties to the United States. Father Coughlin, Lionel Tiger, David Frum, Daniel Casse, Peter Brimlow, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Steyn. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

Goddamn NAFTA.

Posted by djw | October 21, 2007 11:58 AM

"If you don't have a large and growing population, it eventually runs into trouble. See France and Germany, for examples."

What you need is a large and growing *economy*, not a large and growing population. If workers' efficiency grows so that the same number of workers produce more than they did before, then the number of workers doesn't have to grow. But since the population of the United States actually is large and growing, this seems like a strange argument to be making about the United States anyway, whatever it might say about France and Germany.

Posted by Ted | October 21, 2007 12:14 PM

Could Krugman ever bring himself up from the mendacious muck he slthers in?

Here is a man, an economist, who says repeatedly that the majority of the american people are so dumb that they vote against their own economic interest year after year, and don't listen to their betters like Paul Krugman. (Never mind the nonsense he's written about international finance)

Of course he has to sling race baiting, conspiracy, and slime to make his points. He is no longer capable of writing anything worth reading and should not be taken seriously by anyone other than perhaps his immediate family.

Posted by Jozef | October 21, 2007 12:27 PM

. He is no longer capable of writing anything worth reading and should not be taken seriously by anyone other than perhaps his immediate family.

So don't; I'm sure it will be hard, but Krugman will just have to struggle on without you.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 21, 2007 12:38 PM

Unless wages are growing fairly quickly, you actually do need a (rapidly) growing population. The US population is growing slowly (if at all) outside of immigration. Immigration is not a politically stable way to expect a growing tax base: we have large scale (inter and intra party) arguments over the issue here, and the political problems with immigration are even nastier in Europe. You simply cannot continue to grow entitlements without a growing tax base, any more than a Ponzi scheme will work well for the last people playing.

Posted by James Robertson | October 21, 2007 1:06 PM

'What was the failure exactly"
I was thinking of the lack response. and yes Bush is more culpable then Clinton on that account.

Posted by Christoher Colaninno | October 21, 2007 1:17 PM

Matt writes:

And if the flaw in Krugman's book is that he doesn't take the time to respectfully air popular alternative theses and rebut them (and he really doesn't)...

Why should Krugman do that? There's an entire industry devoted to making and keeping those "alternative" theses popular, funded by the oligarchy of winger billionaires who find it in their interests to do so.

There's no reason for Krugman to give any of those "scholars" respect, let alone waste ink rebutting them.

If I want to read what they have to say, I can read almost any pundit other than Krugman in our famously free press.

Posted by lambert strether | October 21, 2007 1:36 PM

More Krugman fun:

Brad DeLong: David M. Kennedy of Stanford Makes His Play for the Stupidest Man Alive Crown.

And it's a crowded field, especially in the chicken winger set...

Posted by lambert strether | October 21, 2007 1:53 PM

Because one reason the welfare state is so strong in Europe - and thus accepted by conservative parties- is the fact that it was built during a time when the US offered a security umbrella which makes European defense expenditure low as a percentage of the GDP.

I always here this meme trotted out, but it seems an unsatisfactory explanation. Sure, the US defense umbrella helped Europe conserve resources that could be spent on social welfare, but it really doesn't explain why the US didn't emulate the Europeans in building a more robust safety net. The common inference, I guess, is that high US defense spending made this unfordable, but this is almost certainly not the case. I mean, currently -- even taking into consideration the country's disastrously expensive foreign military adventures -- America only devotes something like 38% of GDP to public sector spending; four or five decades ago that number was smaller still. Expanding this ratio by, say, five points of GDP would still leave the US with a public sector that is smallish by OECD standards. But just think about what could be done with an extra $650 billion: universal healthcare, wage replacement insurance, college scholarships, worker retraining, urban renewal, childcare benefits, massive increases on public transport and environmental spending, etc.

Now, while it is true that the US spent a lot more of its economy on defense fifty years ago, it's also true that non-defense spending was likewise a smaller item. I think the reasons for America's weak safety net really have little to do with the military, and a lot to do with American political culture. That culture, like every aspect of American life, is shaped by the country's turbulent racial history. Krugman is likely correct in his thesis.

Posted by Jasper | October 21, 2007 1:57 PM

I always here = I always hear.

Matt, you're freakin' contagious.

Posted by Jasper | October 21, 2007 2:00 PM

the US offered a security umbrella

That's just bullshit. Two states in Europe developed nuclear weapons in early 1950s; since then Europe didn't need any additional "security umbrella". To the point where de Gaulle objected to this "security umbrella" (also known as US hegemony) and withdrew from NATO.

Posted by abb1 | October 21, 2007 2:13 PM

"I would like to disagree though with Matt's analysis of the welfare state. This to me is a political economy and an international relations problem. It is also a chicken and egg problem. Why? Because one reason the welfare state is so strong in Europe - and thus accepted by conservative parties- is the fact that it was built during a time when the US offered a security umbrella which makes European defense expenditure low as a percentage of the GDP. Having a welfare state also generates important electoral constituencies which can conserve it on election time. In the US, the contrary happens. Because the US was a superpower, after 1945 she spent a more than fair share of her GDP on defense expenditures. This in turn created also important constituencies and special interests with an eye towards conserving; it's also an institutional factor that makes the US more likely to engage in military operations which in turn makes the issue of "defense" and hawkish policy an important issue in most US elections."

I think you have a good point. However, we could have had a conservative party dominated by the likes of Eisenhower, Prescott Bush and the Rockefellers instead of the party where the memories of Joe McCarthy and Reagan and the younger Bush's presidency today hold greater emotional hold over the conservative party's base. Fareed Zakaria, IIRC, pointed out that Hillarycare wasn't that much different than ideas Republicans floated about in the 1970's. According to an internal Pentagon report, global warming could be a worse national security threat on a global scale than terrorism ever could, yet the so-called national security party doesn't want to admit this exists. I think the deciding factor is that within the framework you have outlined, when racist white Christian conservative Southerners went from being one of many constituencies for the Democrats to being the primary Republican base, their ideological preferences - xenophobia, fear of any tax money going to poor minorities (but ok with it going to poor white), etc. - came to define what conservatism as a practiced political ideology. In essence, the Republicans became the white Christian conservative party. These people were happy with the welfare state when the Southern Democratic machine gave money to poor white but cut off access to poor Southern blacks for welfare funds. However, the Democrats were willing to stake their political capital on civil equality.

Also, people forget that it was the elder Bush's administration that got us into Somalia in the first place.

Posted by Reality Man | October 21, 2007 2:13 PM

I haven't read Krugman's book, but he made a ridiculous cheap shot at Barry Goldwater in his recent New York Times column summarizing the book.(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html) Goldwater (or rather Brent Bozell) said in The Conscience of a Conservative that "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size." In context what he clearly meant was "Eisenhower and Rockefeller accept the New Deal; they present themselves as an alternative to the Democrats only on the grounds that they will make the welfare state streamlined and efficent. I, on the other hand, will go further and eliminate these wasteful programs entirely." According to Krugman, however, the quote means that Goldwater had no objections to corruption and incompetence in government. He's got to know that this is a distortion of what Goldwater meant.

(I will note, however, that I enjoyed Krugman's "Once in a Lifetime"-oriented final paragraph, the first time I have ever seen a sign of his having a sense of humor.)

Posted by James Kabala | October 21, 2007 2:46 PM

Two words, one idea.

Red.

Scare.

The American conservative movement, for the longest time has been successful in portraying an "anti-communist" at any price stance. Even if it involves destroying their own country. However, as the red scare is going away, and as the costs of fighting the "communist menance" are skyrocketing (I.E. LAck of a national health care system) things are quickly changing.

Posted by Karmakin | October 21, 2007 3:08 PM

Re: He was able, however, to eke out majorities

Correction: unless you are including the congressional election of 2002 as some sort of personal Bush victory, George W Bush eked out exactly one majority, in 2004. And without 9-11 I have serious doubts he would have pulled that off.

Re: Because one reason the welfare state is so strong in Europe - and thus accepted by conservative parties- is the fact that it was built during a time when the US offered a security umbrella which makes European defense expenditure low as a percentage of the GDP.

The European welfare state dates back well before the Cold War. The German version of Social Security was the creation of Bismark (not exactly a raging liberal) in the 19th century, and national health insurance programs were created on the Continent during the inter-war period.

Re: By "liberal" these people literally mean those who think the Enlightenment philosophy was a pretty good basis for constructing a decent society.

I don't know about that. The more outre elements of the Religious Right, sure. But what about the economic conservatives who hark back to Adam Smith, who was certainly an Enlightenment philosopher? In regarsd tro the Enlightenment I think the modern Left looks back to Voltaire and the French philosophes, while the modern Right (with exceptions for the true crazies) looks back to Burke, Smith and the British (English+Scotch) Enlightenment figures.

Re: If you don't have a large and growing population, it eventually runs into trouble. See France and Germany, for examples.

Um, we have a large and growing population. As for Germany and France, France is in pretty good shape if you actually look at the numbers not the National Review's propaganda. Germany's principle difficulty has been trying to absorb the disaster of East Germany, but it too has shown signs of recovery. I'm not unsympathetic to arguments that some elements of the Continental system adversely affect their economies (principally an excess of labor regulation, IMO), but the basic welfare costs of a society are going to be paid somehow, and the several models found in Europe all seem to be more efficient than the US model of imposing these costs directly on employers and individuals.

Posted by JonF | October 21, 2007 3:29 PM

"the quote means that Goldwater had no objections to corruption and incompetence in government. He's got to know that this is a distortion of what Goldwater meant."

You have a point, but Goldwater wasn't exactly shy about getting pork for his home state of Arizona. One man's pork is another man's corruption.

"In regarsd tro the Enlightenment I think the modern Left looks back to Voltaire and the French philosophes, while the modern Right (with exceptions for the true crazies) looks back to Burke, Smith and the British (English+Scotch) Enlightenment figures."

Who are these American conservatives who actually look to Burke? Beyond academics at schools like Darthmouth and those who have fallen out of favor like Scowcroft, I really can't think of any who have any real connection to Burkean philosophy. Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus, which is a judgment I doubt Burke would share (but I haven't read enough Burke to know for sure). There also seems to be a general confusion among conservatives these days between what Adam Smith actually said and Laffer-style supply-side economics and whatever rich Republican donors say capitalism is from day to day.

Posted by Reality Man | October 21, 2007 4:06 PM

Who are these American conservatives who actually look to Burke?. There are three of them. One of them is named John, I think. In Tenessee.

American movement conservatism is a brand name, a team to belong to. It has as much intellectual content as rooting for the Milwaukee Brewers.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | October 21, 2007 4:39 PM

The Southern white bogeyman is so tired. I'm not at all surprised that Krugman leans on him to explain everything about the radical Republican takeover of government. Because we all know that Goldwater was from the South. And Nixon. And Reagan, too. We all know the racist history of the South, but at least it is understandable. Fear of uprisings is the historic reason so many Southerners are racist. The real question is why do so many people in the West and MidWest hate black people. Their black populations are tiny, and yet they still vote Republican. Their fear, in contrast to the Southerners, seems to me to be totally irrational. They are the radicals driving the ideology of the Republican Party. Why do they oppose the welfare state?

Posted by Just Karl | October 21, 2007 9:05 PM

" Fear of uprisings is the historic reason so many Southerners are racist."

Really? Huh. Well then.

" . . . not at all surprised that Krugman leans on him to explain everything about the radical Republican takeover of government. "

Nah. Just how the radical branch of the Republican party was able to garner enough popular support to actually win elections. As Nick pointed out early on in the thread, that's a pretty widespread view. (I should note that Krugman discusses a number of other issues at some length - it's just, he argues, that according to the data, while they had real effects, it was along the lines of winning close elections - it took the race issue to put the radicals over the top, to get them up high enough that an assist from cultural anxieties, etc. could land them in office.)

"Because we all know that Goldwater was from the South. And Nixon. And Reagan, too.
Because we all know that politicians are merely sincere and honest spokesmen for the values and prejudices of their native soil, never pandering other groups, even if that offers a route to electoral success. Uh huh.

Meanwhile, the whole idea is that these guys don't have to - and in many cases likely don't - share whatever values they're exploiting to get into office. That's a big part of the point - their actual agenda, he argues, is so grossly elitist that they simply can't sell it on its merits, and need to smuggle it in in the trunk of a welfare cadillac.

"The real question is why do so many people in the West and MidWest hate black people"

Now this is where one of Kennedy's actually-decent points comes into play - one of the places where an appeal to civil rights backlash voters would perhaps be least effective would be, I imagine, perhaps horribly wrongly, the interior West- where land issues may well have replaced it, and doubtlessly helped win close elections. But a Republican party that managed to win on the strength of that issue - in conjunction with whatever other non-race-issues - would have been a very different one, as Matt points out.

Posted by Dan S. | October 21, 2007 10:49 PM

it's just, he argues, that according to the data, while they had real effects, it was along the lines of winning close elections

Prior to 2000, which Presidential election was close? Exactly which ones did the Southern white racists tip? Humphrey won only a handful of states. The only state McGovern won was Mass. Carter won 5 or 6 states in 1980. The only state Mondale won was Minn. Dukakis did well to win 10 states in 88. Gimmie a friggin break.

But a Republican party that managed to win on the strength of that issue - in conjunction with whatever other non-race-issues - would have been a very different one, as Matt points out.

There are only two possibilities for the Republican success over the last 50 years. One is that the non-race-issues won the elections for them. The other is that racism appeals to all regions of the country.

Posted by Just Karl | October 22, 2007 12:46 AM

Here is a man, an economist, who says repeatedly that the majority of the american people are so dumb... and don't listen to their betters like Paul Krugman...Of course he has to sling race baiting, conspiracy, and slime to make his points...
Posted by Jozef | October 21, 2007 12:27 PM

Tell us what you really think Jozef.
But seriously you are the funny man. Have you ever heard of advertising Jozef, do you know that advertising works on people Jozef? Political advertizing is no different. The American people's choices has little to do with stupidity and much to do with what they are sold, in particular 30 years of conservative econonomic bullshit. As for the role of race, well lee atwater showed how low tax libertarian economic policy could be crafted to disproportionately hurt black families. His speaches are out there, they are no secret, why you chose to be ignorant, well that's between you and your god, but I do wish you would recant and save us the effects of your stupid political ideas. Actually, just go crawl back into the hate filled dustbin you slidered out of, probably AEI, the heritage institute or some other temple of prostituted intellectual effluvia.

---------------

Just Karl,
Racism does appeal to all sections of the country. But it reallty appeals when it is delivered in code words and wrapped up in attacks on Social Programs. Then it sells sells sells.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 22, 2007 10:23 AM

What on earth about the modern left's political philosophy can be drawn back to Voltaire, who was completely dubious of democracy and looked to "enlightened despots" to pursue progressive reforms? Voltaire was good on civil liberties, but he was really not politically radical at all. Rousseau is the obvious person for the left to supposedly look back to, although that's dubious as well.

Posted by John | October 22, 2007 12:23 PM

I used Voltaire as an example only. There were three major strands of Enlightenment thinking: the French, the British and the German. They were not of course isolated from one another and they influenced one another. The French strain, harshly anti-religious (or at least anti-ecclesial) and skeptical of all established institutions, is best represented, symbolically at least, by Voltaire. It includes Diderot, Montesqieu, Rousseau (granted he's a bit sui generis), Condorcet and ultimately passed into 19th century French liberal politics via Mme de Stael and her lover, Benjamin Constant, furnishing the basis for the revolutuions of 1830 and 1848.
The British strain is probably best represented by Adam Smith. It is pragamatic and suspicious of grandiose ideologies, skeptical about religion as such, but tolerant of the Church and other existing insituitions, which it sought to reform not abolish. Hume, Gibbon and Burke are other figures in the tradition and it also descends to future generations through the British Liberal party of the 19th century. The German Enlightenment was personnified by two great geniuses: Goethe and Kant. It was less rational and more tolerant of mystical impulses than the other two. Its 19th century heirs were Hegel and through him, Marx and Nietzsche. The French and British Enlightenment traditions mingled jointly in late 18th century America with some of the Founders (e.g., Jefferson) more "French" than "British", and some (e.g., Hamilton) the opposite. The German strain had little influence here at all. Modern American liberalism owes more to the French than the British and modern American conservatism (note: not the Radical Right!) owes more to the British.
That is the point I was trying to make.

Posted by JonF | October 22, 2007 1:34 PM

Reality Man: "...when racist white Christian conservative Southerners went from being one of many constituencies for the Democrats to being the primary Republican base, their ideological preferences - xenophobia, fear of any tax money going to poor minorities (but ok with it going to poor white), etc."

Note that they don't have strenuous objections to their money going to rich white people.

Posted by Barry | October 29, 2007 6:32 PM