Oh, gawd, Bobo’s got a question…

[sigh]  Happy Independence Day.  Now for the bad news.  Bobo has decided to ask himself “What’s the Matter With Republicans?”  Oh, Bobo, your commenters keep trying to tell you if you’d only read, mark, and inwardly digest what they have to say.  Bobo says rural Republicans often see life and politics through an ethos formed in frontier life.  Bobo is, as usual, so full of shit that his eyes are brown, and “gemli” from Boston will have words to say.  But here’s Bobo:

Over the past two months the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress have proposed a budget and two health care plans that would take benefits away from core Republican constituencies, especially working-class voters. And yet over this time Donald Trump’s approval rating has remained unchanged, at 40 percent. During this period the Republicans have successfully defended a series of congressional seats.

What’s going on? Why do working-class conservatives seem to vote so often against their own economic interests?

My stab at an answer would begin in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many Trump supporters live in places that once were on the edge of the American frontier. Life on that frontier was fragile, perilous, lonely and remorseless. If a single slip could produce disaster, then discipline and self-reliance were essential. The basic pattern of life was an underlying condition of peril, warded off by an ethos of self-restraint, temperance, self-control and strictness of conscience.

Frontier towns sometimes went from boomtown to Bible Belt in a single leap. They started out lawless. People needed to impose codes of respectability to survive. Frontier religions were often ascetic, banning drinking, card-playing and dancing. And yet there was always a whiff of extreme disorder — drunkenness, violence and fraud — threatening from down below.

Today these places are no longer frontier towns, but many of them still exist on the same knife’s edge between traditionalist order and extreme dissolution.

For example, I have a friend who is an avid Trump admirer. He supports himself as a part-time bartender and a part-time home contractor, and by doing various odd jobs on the side. A good chunk of his income is off the books. He has built up a decent savings account, but he has done it on his own, hustling, scrapping his way, without any long-term security. His income can vary sharply from week to week. He doesn’t have much trust in the institutions around him. He has worked on government construction projects but sees himself, rightly, as a small-business man.

This isn’t too different from the hard, independent life on the frontier. Many people in these places tend to see their communities the way foreign policy realists see the world: as an unvarnished struggle for resources — as a tough world, a no-illusions world, a world where conflict is built into the fabric of reality.

The virtues most admired in such places, then and now, are what Shirley Robin Letwin once called the vigorous virtues: “upright, self-sufficient, energetic, adventurous, independent minded, loyal to friends and robust against foes.”

The sins that can cause the most trouble are not the social sins — injustice, incivility, etc. They are the personal sins — laziness, self-indulgence, drinking, sleeping around.

Then as now, chaos is always washing up against the door. Very few people actually live up to the code of self-discipline that they preach. A single night of gambling or whatever can produce life-altering bad choices. Moreover, the forces of social disruption are visible on every street: the slackers taking advantage of the disability programs, the people popping out babies, the drug users, the spouse abusers.

Voters in these places could use some help. But these Americans, like most Americans, vote on the basis of their vision of what makes a great nation. These voters, like most voters, believe that the values of the people are the health of the nation.

In their view, government doesn’t reinforce the vigorous virtues. On the contrary, it undermines them — by fostering initiative-sucking dependency, by letting people get away with their mistakes so they can make more of them and by getting in the way of moral formation.

The only way you build up self-reliant virtues, in this view, is through struggle. Yet faraway government experts want to cushion people from the hardships that are the schools of self-reliance. Compassionate government threatens to turn people into snowflakes.

In her book “Strangers in Their Own Land,” the sociologist Arlie Hochschild quotes a woman from Louisiana complaining about the childproof lids on medicine and the mandatory seatbelt laws. “We let them throw lawn darts, smoked alongside them,” the woman says of her children. “And they survived. Now it’s like your kid needs a helmet, knee pads and elbow pads to go down the kiddy slide.”

Hochschild’s humble and important book is a meditation on why working-class conservatives vote against more government programs for themselves. She emphasizes that they perceive government as a corrupt arm used against the little guy. She argues that these voters may vote against their economic interests, but they vote for their emotional interests, for candidates who share their emotions about problems and groups.

I’d say they believe that big government support would provide short-term assistance, but that it would be a long-term poison to the values that are at the core of prosperity. You and I might disagree with that theory. But it’s a plausible theory. Anybody who wants to design policies to help the working class has to make sure they go along the grain of the vigorous virtues, not against them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Bobo.  I grew up playing on cement paved playgrounds and survived.  Does that make me a daughter of the frontier?  Here’s what “gemli” has to say:

“How many working-class “friends” can one wealthy, aloof, conservative intellectual TV celebrity and elite New York Times columnist have? Yet Mr. Brooks mentions one or two in every column. This may be a cry for help.

But assuming that he knows these people, they tend to exemplify modern-day dilemmas, the answers to which are always found in the 18th and 19th centuries. It seems that people have a thin, brittle patina of righteous moralizing that covers a bunch of saloon-town gun-toting delinquents, carousing, cheating the rubes and gambling with other people’s money.

That certainly describes today’s Republicans in the hallowed halls of Congress, as they try to pull the rug out from under the old and the sick just to increase their wealth by a hardly-noticeable jot, all the while thumping honest folk with a dusty, unopened frontier bible.

None of this imaginary moralizing and real-life greed will solve any of our ills. If people in the heartland think endemic problems born of low wages, economic abandonment of cities, poor education and biblically-based science denial can be solved by putting a slick, unlettered crook in the White House, then they deserve their fate.

But the rest of us don’t deserve it. If they can’t see that they’re being pandered to by liars and crooks, well, that’s too bad. We need to run these varmints out of Washington on a high-speed rail, which, sadly, we’ve never been able to get going. Gosh-darn Lousy infrastructure.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: