New England, Texas, and Class Confusion

There was an op-ed piece in yesterday’s Oregonian by political consultant Kari Chisholm, one of many post-election postmortems to appear in the media since Black Tuesday, this one focusing on how the Democratic party should look to candidates from the west. Part of Chisholm’s argument got me thinking:

“Let’s face it: For all of his strengths, average middle-class American families simply couldn’t identify with John Kerry…He always came across as [a] prep-school liberal, part of the brie-and-chablis scene back East. Conversely, George ‘Dubya’ Bush has portrayed a regular-guy image, comfortable with the NASCAR-and-barbecue crowd. While Kerry tried to fake it with L.L. Bean camouflage hunting gear, Bush looked at home in his blue jeans and cowboy boots.”

What interests me is why in a contest between two rich blue-bloods, one seemed a man of the people and one didn’t. The difference, I think, is between our perception of New England and the Northeast versus our perception of Texas. In Texas, it seems, no matter how rich and privileged you are, somehow it’s still possible to maintain—at least to outsiders—this façade of being an average Joe. But I think a better way to explain it is that no amount of money can make a Texan seem culturally sophisticated.

In other words, then, John Kerry suffered against Bush because his home region is a modern, enlightened place, while Bush’s home is still one that takes the rough-and-tumble frontier as its cultural emblem, with intellectualism in effect frowned upon as being uppity. As a result, Kerry going snowboarding, however genuine a passion it may be, rings false, while Bush in cowboy boots and jeans on his ranch is, however phony it may be, rings true.

As Valarie pointed out last night when we were having this same conversation, why is it that so many American voters resist the idea of electing a president who’s smarter and more culturally sophisticated than they are?

The issue of class in America never gets spoken about much any more, especially in comparison to somewhere like England, where it remains a veritable obsession. But clearly it matters a lot here too. In the end, John Kerry seemed to come from a more upper-class background than Bush did, even though that of course is not true. Polling shows that voters lean Democrat on the issues themselves by a comfortable margin, so that means personality loomed large in this election. It didn’t help matters that Kerry was wooden and uncharismatic, but I think there was more that worked against him. For all the importance of Iraq, the deficit, and moralistic crusades and all the other issues, I can’t help but think millions of voters swindled themselves.

Comments

[allan]

I remember watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" and realizing that Bush doesn't seem to have a clue how to actually use a chainsaw. There was one scene where he was trying to cut through a log in the woods, and with several guys helping him (probably secret service agents who also had no clue) still never really managed to do it. He tried several cuts and would get so far and then jam up his saw. Then he would try again in a different place. His assistants would then try to turn the log for him but that didn't work very well either. He didn't have enough sense to just make an undercut. Watching that made me realize that whole wood cutting business was just for show; and yet, as you say, Bush was seen as being a genuine, chainsaw weilding, downhome kind of guy. Of course, why most Americans want to elect someone they can identify with anyway is beyond me. Well, not really. Most Americans are too dumb to realize that most Americans are dumb. After all, this is an electorate that even now thinks that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

[allan]

Allan, you dummy, you mispelled wield.

[Kari Chisholm]

I found this months after the fact, but we're having a conversation about all this Western stuff over at http://www.WesternDemocrat.com>WesternDemocrat.com