standards times two
This article at the Gadlfyer says it pretty well: "In today's politics, it is acceptable for Republicans to traffic in ugly stereotypes and assert outright that people who come from some areas of America are not really American."
It's true. Why is it generally considered a much better idea to nominate a Southern Democrat than a Northern one, but nobody even blinks when, as in 2000, both of the major GOP candidates are from the south? Because the midwest, the "heartland," is for some reason considered more American than the coasts.
It's true. Why is it generally considered a much better idea to nominate a Southern Democrat than a Northern one, but nobody even blinks when, as in 2000, both of the major GOP candidates are from the south? Because the midwest, the "heartland," is for some reason considered more American than the coasts.
6 Comments:
Interestingly, I was just having a talk with my Iowa U friend about this the other day. He's getting his Masters in American Studies and he has long argued that American regionalism is a myth largely propped up by "archaic" Constitutional measures (EC, 10th Amendement, etc.), political parties, and academia who from their enlightened Ivory tower strongholds, love to look down (in the name of sociology) on white trashy, gun-owning heartlanders, Bible Belters, and simple Western ranchers, etc. One things's for sure: I like to make fun of Bible Belters too.
So, maybe this perplexing double standard you speak of where Southerners (from both parties mind you; See Edwards, John; Clinton, Bill) and Midwesterners always get preferential election treatment stems from not a regional issue, but a class issue. Americans like salt-of-the-Earth, real people to run for President. We don't want acamedics and patricians running the show. So, where do we find such wizened, "real" folk -- why the Midwest! And in an interesting, self-fulfilling prophecy loop, it is largely the media (Hollywood) and academia that contiues to propagate this truth/myth of the pure-hearted heartlander who represents real values. It's a political archetype that can really be seen everywhere, in Blue and Red state alike. Look at Guiliani. He was often portrayed as a plucky, boxer-type, a immigrant Italian who worked his way up the system. Or CA, where the home of elite pricks (me), still elected a man (Arnold) who successfully campaigned as a rich, famous man, albeit a self-made, formerly broke immigrant who made the system work for him by embracing absolute American values like capitalism, hard work, and starry-eyed dreaming.
All told, I believe it's simply due to a political practicality that the GOP does a better job of portraying Dems as un-American and out-of-touch. It just boils down to the fact that the GOP's electoral base is now in the heartland and the south.
And fret not, it was at one time reversed, and could be again. When the GOP base was Greater New England, it was they who struggled to grab slices of Middle American authenticity. (see Great Depression through Ike)
Hell, this stereotype still persists in some circles, some on the Left are conditioned to lampoon GOPsters as nothing more than William Buckley-like, snobby white, country club patricians who know nothing of the little guy.
Quoth the Alex: "So, maybe this perplexing double standard you speak of where Southerners (from both parties mind you; See Edwards, John; Clinton, Bill) and Midwesterners always get preferential election treatment stems from not a regional issue, but a class issue. Americans like salt-of-the-Earth, real people to run for President. We don't want acamedics and patricians running the show."
First off, didn't I say it was all about both parties? The point is that it's always OK to be from the south, and NEVER OK to be from the north. It's just goofy. I find it just as scary that Bush is a Texas Republican (have you read the Texas GOP platform? It's horrifying) as any conservative might find it that Kerry is a Mass liberal, yet the latter is a constant rallying cry, while the former is never mentioned.
Secondly, aren't you falling right into this trap? What sort of goofy pretentious mindset says that the only salt-of-the-earth real americans live in the midwest and south? Are the coal miners in PA not salt-of-the earth? Are the movie producers in Los Angeles somehow not "real americans"? That's such bullshit.
I think to me it just seems like for all of the whining about academics looking down on middle America, the people really getting the shaft are those on the coasts who somehow don't live up this standard of being "real americans." It's snobbery all the same for the NASCAR dads to sneer at the weak-kneed intellectuals, but somehow they get away with it.
And you're right, and it is mentioned in the article I linked, that the media and acedmics only feed this tripe, perhaps because they've been convinced they are somehow inferior to the "real Americans." It's dumb, and it has to stop. I'm really sick and tired of being told that I'm less American because of my politics or my geographical location.
Maybe it has a lot to do with education level. A lot of the jobs in middle america are blue-collar, so the people are probably not as educated. And uneducated people outnumber educated people in this country. So they have the power and it's power that makes the moral code. (Was it Neitzche who wrote about that?) Educated people become 'bad people' because the majority aren't that. The uneducated feel threatened by the educated and so they turn around and make them inferior. I think the real problem in this country is getting people educated so they can make more informed decisions, rather than ones based on unfounded stereotypes. Sadly, that isn't a huge priority right now.
Well, I frequent many liberal online hotspots and I'd be a Texas billionaire if I had a penny for everytime Bush and Co. were derided/lampooned/hated for their Southerness, their religiosity, their cowboy-ocity, their conservatism, etc. So it's not exactly like people of the liberal inclination are the sole victims of political labeling.
It's only a result of my ramblings that my long post may have come off as simply contributing to the problem of American/Un-American labeling. I was only saying that Americans as a whole (and especially the cultural movers and shakers) seem to think "real Americans" hail from landlocked states.
I don't think that, seeing as how I've never even been to a landlocked state or the Empire of Texas. I actually agree with Asa on this. Hollywood producer is not any less American than Montana rancher.
Unless Hollywood producer is a communist.
The president himself has said, on numerous occasions, that the heart and soul of America is not found in Hollywood.
And I believe everything he says.
Oh yeah, we agree. And agree with the article. Delightful.
Post a Comment
<< Home