There is a school of historians and other scholars who maintain that we are, as a people, basically conservative. The story goes something like this: liberals are crazy social engineers who will make you tolerate all kinds of weird people—even gay ones!—and real America—which is, generally, construed as meaning white working class people—do not like you effete liberals doing that. As if shifts in sexual attitudes did not result from a massive cultural sea change, and instead happened because liberals starting sneaking condoms into school lunches.
I am willing to credit that conservative working-class people exist. But I do not believe they are the bedrock source of modern Republicanism nor, despite a kind of casual identification of white working-class people with “real America,” do I believe they represent America.
Why do I express doubt on these points?
(a) Poorer people vote Democrat, richer people vote Republican. No matter what cultural attitudes they may express, in the voting booth people seem to see “liberal” in economic, not cultural terms. As the linked artlcle, by McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal shows, over the past thirty-five years or so, there has been increasing real division between rich and poor, and it has gone along with increasing party polarization. And there’s lots more evidence of that nature on the way, as this preview of Larry Bartels’s new book seems to show.
(b) The American people are more liberal on both cultural and social issues than you’d think if you thought only about “the American people” in terms of Nixon’s “silent majority,” or Reagan Democrats. So say Pew.
This post born from a comment on this panel, which in q & a turned out to be a lot less historical and more political.


12 comments
March 31, 2008 at 12:12 pm
John Emerson
I agree. I think that this whole meme goes back to Nixon’s “hard hats” and the “Reagan Democrats”. It was an electoral strategy and a propaganda tactic which basically split off a moderate chunk of the Democratic base in labor and claimed that they ones they got were the real ones, even though most labor still was Democratic. The overwhelming Republican support in the South and inland West probably also comes especially from the better-off people there (I have no data though).
Sometimes anti-intellectualism is used as a proxy for “working class”. If you look at the conservative mega-churches, new churches, and TV churches, their believers are certainly anti-intellectual, but they’re not usually poor and not necessarily working class. People educated in the most practical ($$$) fields often are totally uninterested in the liberal arts side of school.
If the Republicans ever get 30% of the Jewish vote, or 20% of the black vote, they’ll start talking about how Jews and blacks are really natural Republicans who are just starting to see the light. Same for the gay community.
Using anti-intellectualism as a criterion for conservativism turns the old elitist conservativism on its head, but dressing the present Republican party up as conservative is an almost impossible task in several different ways. Though conservativism in democracies has probably always relied on stupid conventional nativists.
March 31, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Ben Alpers
Louis Hartz argued that even American conservatives were liberals (i.e. Lockean). While I think there’s probably more to this than to the view that Americans are basically not liberal, I also think that there are powerful illiberal strains in American political life (I’m working on the Straussians who I’d argue would qualify).
If the Republicans ever get 30% of the Jewish vote, or 20% of the black vote, they’ll start talking about how Jews and blacks are really natural Republicans who are just starting to see the light.
About a decade ago, I actually heard Gene Genovese argue at a conference that blacks were naturally conservative Republicans. He went so far as to express confusion about why they didn’t vote that way, which in turn confused me. If anyone should understand exactly why African Americans don’t vote Republican, Eugene Genovese (even the somewhat Bizarro Eugene Genovese of recent years) should! I’ve also had a Marxist-turned-conservative Jewish political scientist similarly ask me how I, as a Jew, could still be on the left. So I guess we don’t need to wait for even 5% of either constituency to vote Republican for this to happen.
March 31, 2008 at 12:59 pm
John B.
You may be surprised at the number of Bush-Cheney signs (even at this late date) in yards and on vehicles in the area of Appalachia, in western Virginia, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, etc…basically the coal mining area of the south central Appalachia. Methadone clinics on the corners of the streets, dogs on chains in dirt yards, and Bush Cheney signs in yards and in windows of trucks and trailer homes.
Go figure.
There are lots of books out there trying to explain why people vote against their perceived economic self-interest and the frames that have allowed the wealthier class to hoodwink working class folks think that they are on their side, and I have read some of those books.
But it is still a mystery to me how people that work for a living continue to vote for politicians that are millionaires. It is truly a problem in a representative democracy that almost all of the poiticians are millionaires and are of the very wealthy class. It’s almost impossible for them to see and experince much less know what the rest of America lives are like and what it takes to live a decent and honorable life.
March 31, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Jon S.
I don’t know much about history, but it sure was fun to see Eric on YouTube….
March 31, 2008 at 1:23 pm
son1
Aren’t Andrew Gelman’s papers and blog-posts an important part of any discussion of a relationship between party affiliation and voter income? His take seems to be that broad statements about these patterns (”poorer people vote Democratic”) tend to a hide a lot of state-to-state variation…
March 31, 2008 at 2:42 pm
eric
Aren’t Andrew Gelman’s papers and blog-posts an important part of any discussion
Certainly of a long, thorough, scholarly discussion, yes. Unfortunately that description poorly characterizes this blog and some conference panels.
More seriously, son1, I don’t think Gelman’s work undermines the broader point here—unless you want to say, because Gelman finds that richer people in richer states are less Republican than richer people in poorer states, the type of the decadent coastal elitist has some truth to it. Nobody made up all those celebs in the Will.i.am videos.
But does Gelman’s work support the converse thesis—that there are is a really significant and important and representative number of hard-hat Republicans, former Democrats angry about how the cultural left forced them to dance to “Y.M.C.A.” at their weddings?
March 31, 2008 at 2:45 pm
eric
it sure was fun to see Eric on YouTube
You should ask Greenberg if I wasn’t even better in person.
March 31, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Are we all progressives now? « The Edge of the American West
[...] 31, 2008 in Uncategorized by eric So long as I’m debriefing myself about the OAH panel on this blog, let me put up my answer to the “nomenclature [...]
March 31, 2008 at 6:05 pm
son1
I don’t think Gelman’s work undermines the broader point here…
I wouldn’t argue with you on that. Even Gelman writes, “in rich states such as Connecticut, rich people are … slightly more Republican than the poor.” That’s why “these patterns tend to hide a lot of state-to-state variation” sounds like it’s hedging — ’cause it is.
If a post like this isn’t the right place for bringing up Gelman, fair enough. It’s just that that paper did so much for my own thinking about the rich/poor red-state/blue-state thing…
March 31, 2008 at 6:31 pm
eric
No, I was pointing out that I wasn’t being scholarly or thorough in the post. It’s exactly the right place to bring it up, in the thread.
March 31, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Colin
John, is it possible that people correctly perceive their class interests but prefer to vote on some other basis?
-
The problem with the questions up top is that neither liberal nor conservative has any stable meaning.
April 1, 2008 at 6:00 am
John B.
Colin, yes it is possible (that is, if the John you are addressing is me…), but one might still believe that the so called pocketbook issues might have a greater sway over the so called culture war based issues; religion, guns, women’s rights, etc…but clearly this isn’t the case.