Krugman on Elitism and Republican Resentment as a Political Strategy

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
The Resentment Strategy
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington elite”?

Yes, they can.

On Tuesday, He Who Must Not Be Named — Mitt Romney mentioned him just once, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin not at all — gave a video address to the Republican National Convention. John McCain, promised President Bush, would stand up to the “angry left.” That’s no doubt true. But don’t be fooled either by Mr. McCain’s long-ago reputation as a maverick or by Ms. Palin’s appealing persona: the Republican Party, now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier than its counterpart on the other side.

What’s the source of all that anger?

Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict: fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the perception — generally based on no evidence whatsoever — that Democrats look down their noses at regular people.

Thus Mr. Giuliani asserted that Wasilla, Alaska, isn’t “flashy enough” for Mr. Obama, who never said any such thing. And Ms. Palin asserted that Democrats “look down” on small-town mayors — again, without any evidence.

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

One of the key insights in “Nixonland,” the new book by the historian Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon’s political strategy throughout his career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself elected student body president by exploiting his classmates’ resentment against the Franklins, the school’s elite social club. There’s a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew’s attacks on the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as “an effete corps of impudent snobs,” and from there to the peculiar cult of personality that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush — a cult that celebrated his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the “misunderestimated” C-average student had proved himself smarter than all the fancy-pants experts.

And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his presidency crashed and burned, the angry right — the raging rajas of resentment? — became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do that.

Can Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin really ride Nixonian resentment into an upset election victory in what should be an overwhelmingly Democratic year? The answer is a definite maybe.

By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters — the candidate’s high-flown eloquence, his coolness factor — have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash. Unlike many observers, I wasn’t surprised at the effectiveness of the McCain “celebrity” ad. It didn’t make much sense intellectually, but it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr. Obama’s star quality.

That said, the experience of the years since 2000 — the memory of what happened to working Americans when faux-populist Republicans controlled the government — is still fairly fresh in voters’ minds. Furthermore, while Democrats’ supposed contempt for ordinary people is mainly a figment of Republican imagination, the G.O.P. really is the Gramm Old Party — it really does believe that the economy is just fine, and the fact that most Americans disagree just shows that we’re a nation of whiners.

But the Democrats can’t afford to be complacent. Resentment, no matter how contrived, is a powerful force, and it’s one that Republicans are very, very good at exploiting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I don't agree that Roe v. Wade and evolution are the major causes of the ire he discusses, but otherwise he's spot on. Just like other analyses of McCain's speech show that he has become the very candidate, in terms of strategy, topics, policies and attacks, that ruined his 2000 campaign.

The phony "class war" being waged by the party who are expressing outrage for taxation on the wealthy gets under my skin. I turned on O'Reilly to see his Obama interview last night (and was irritated by his bait and switch and the fact that he feels the need to ask about Ayers like the lapdog that he is), and he was mocking "wine drinking, brie eating" liberals. Like someone on his salary can only afford the dollar menu and hot dog stands.
 
I disagree that it's just Republicans being negative. Aren't the Democrats trying to say that McCain is just another Bush and we can't have 4 more years of Bush? Seems like a scare tactic if you ask me.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I disagree that it's just Republicans being negative. Aren't the Democrats trying to say that McCain is just another Bush and we can't have 4 more years of Bush? Seems like a scare tactic if you ask me.[/quote]

That relates to directly to policy and how John McCain will govern and at least has some evidence to support it. Making Obama out to be an elitist is an emotional appeal to "GIT R DONE" jackasses and has no evidence whatsoever. Yes, they're exactly the same
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I disagree that it's just Republicans being negative. Aren't the Democrats trying to say that McCain is just another Bush and we can't have 4 more years of Bush?[/QUOTE]

Are you really, really trying to compare something that is undeniably a fact and for say one example Giuliani putting on a faux limp wrist accent?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I don't agree that Roe v. Wade and evolution are the major causes of the ire he discusses, but otherwise he's spot on. [/QUOTE]

Agreed.


As for the rest, I agree with the hypocracy of the GOP, but if you don't think the same thing isn't going on with the Dems, well c'mon now.

Like Obama is more in touch with his 4 million last year and his million dollar compound he just bought. And them trying to say McCain "votes" with Bush 90% of the time, I bet if someone took the time we'd find that Biden and Obama "voted" with Bush 80%+. Just a couple things off the top of my head. Point is, this is an opinion piece with someone that obviously agrees with Obama, so of course he wouldn't point out that the Dems are doing the same thing.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Agreed.

As for the rest, I agree with the hypocracy of the GOP, but if you don't think the same thing isn't going on with the Dems, well c'mon now.

Like Obama is more in touch with his 4 million last year and his million dollar compound he just bought. And them trying to say McCain "votes" with Bush 90% of the time, I bet if someone took the time we'd find that Biden and Obama "voted" with Bush 80%+. Just a couple things off the top of my head. Point is, this is an opinion piece with someone that obviously agrees with Obama, so of course he wouldn't point out that the Dems are doing the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that's incorrect -- I've been pointing out that McCain has voted Republican party line (that is, "with Bush") on at least 87.5% of votes since before even the Democrats were using the line. Similarly, Obama (and Clinton -- didn't check Biden) voted *against* Bush almost 90% of the time. The importance of what's in the ten percent for McCain/Obama/Clinton (torture/telecom immunity/the war) is another matter.

Anyway, the point of the article isn't just negativity. It's anti-intellectual resentment, which isn't a typically Democratic position.
 
As the article mentions, the funniest thing during the whole convention was Mitt Romney bemoaning the "east coast elites." Here is a guy who got a dual degree from Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School, grew up the son of a governor, founder of east coast VC firm Bain Capital, billionaire, governor of the most liberal and elite of all east coast states. Wow. Hard to believe he could advance the "small town, simple folk v. east coast intelligentsia" argument without bursting out laughing.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I disagree that it's just Republicans being negative. Aren't the Democrats trying to say that McCain is just another Bush and we can't have 4 more years of Bush? Seems like a scare tactic if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.....to a much lesser extent. Heres the difference. The Dems have tossed punches but many have been fair, and the ones that arnt fair have been gloved punches. Saying stuff like he is out of touch and another Bush while eye roll worthy for their unimportance have degrees of truth. He HAS voted with Bush like 90% of the time, he HAS changed his views on issues and voted against his own bills. And he does have a challange claiming to be in touch given that he is married to a very rich woman and owns and lives in many houses. Meanwhile Obama and Biden are people that take the train home and just payed off credit cards/school loans a few years ago.

Now compare those attacks to things like the whole Rev Wright scandal, questioning his and Michelles patriotism, calling them limousine riding liberals and flat out lying that they want to raise taxes on the middle class.

As I said Obama and the Dems have made attacks, and some have been unfair such as Obamas running with McCains $5 mill is rich commment. But they are nothing compared to the ungloved knock your teeth out punches Republicans have been tossing.
 
[quote name='trq']Actually, that's incorrect -- I've been pointing out that McCain has voted Republican party line (that is, "with Bush") on at least 87.5% of votes since before even the Democrats were using the line. Similarly, Obama (and Clinton -- didn't check Biden) voted *against* Bush almost 90% of the time. The importance of what's in the ten percent for McCain/Obama/Clinton (torture/telecom immunity/the war) is another matter.

Anyway, the point of the article isn't just negativity. It's anti-intellectual resentment, which isn't a typically Democratic position.[/QUOTE]

I looked into what Obama was talking about when he said that, I guess I just thought of it differently. Anyway, this website says Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time in 2007 and 50% of the time in 2006. So we were both wrong ;)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Agreed.


As for the rest, I agree with the hypocracy of the GOP, but if you don't think the same thing isn't going on with the Dems, well c'mon now.

Like Obama is more in touch with his 4 million last year and his million dollar compound he just bought. And them trying to say McCain "votes" with Bush 90% of the time, I bet if someone took the time we'd find that Biden and Obama "voted" with Bush 80%+. Just a couple things off the top of my head. Point is, this is an opinion piece with someone that obviously agrees with Obama, so of course he wouldn't point out that the Dems are doing the same thing.[/QUOTE]

*rolls his eyes*

Like I just said Obama was paying off Credit Cards just a few years ago and grew up on Welfare at one point. Biden takes the train home and lives a fairly modest life compared to other politicians. As for the voting record again thats a joke. You people supporting McCain or atleast the right love to point out that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate....yet now you want to claim his voting record would be close to inline with Bush? Sigh the people here that accept facts are just too few and far between.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']*rolls his eyes*

Like I just said Obama was paying off Credit Cards just a few years ago and grew up on Welfare at one point. Biden takes the train home and lives a fairly modest life compared to other politicians. As for the voting record again thats a joke. You people supporting McCain or atleast the right love to point out that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate....yet now you want to claim his voting record would be close to inline with Bush? Sigh the people here that accept facts are just too few and far between.[/QUOTE]

Read above.

As far as Obama/Biden. Yes Biden lives very modestly compared to most in the Senate. And yes Obama was raised by a single mom and was not wealthy growing up. But McCain wasn't born with the silver spoon he has now. They are both multi-millionaires now. I'm sure by the time Obama is 72 he will have made more money than McCain has.
 
Mitt Romney has always reminded me a lot of John Kerry, they even look a bit alike. For him to attack the "elitists" is just hypocritical, a total pot and kettle situation.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Read above.

As far as Obama/Biden. Yes Biden lives very modestly compared to most in the Senate. And yes Obama was raised by a single mom and was not wealthy growing up. But McCain wasn't born with the silver spoon he has now. They are both multi-millionaires now. I'm sure by the time Obama is 72 he will have made more money than McCain has.[/quote]
Yeah, he just married his silver spoon.:lol:
 
Dems also campaign negatively, but they do so on the basis of policy -- not character. The GOP has been attacking character very, very hard for quite a while... they're trying to run on character instead of policy & aptitude to make decisions. McCain's a maverick, a POW, wholesome, Obama's snooty, elitist, mr. smarty pants... I'm surprised the GOP's attack machine hasn't turned a lot of republicans off.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Read above.

As far as Obama/Biden. Yes Biden lives very modestly compared to most in the Senate. And yes Obama was raised by a single mom and was not wealthy growing up. But McCain wasn't born with the silver spoon he has now. They are both multi-millionaires now. I'm sure by the time Obama is 72 he will have made more money than McCain has.[/QUOTE]

True. However you ignore the fact that while McCain wasnt born with a silver spoon he was born into a family that obviously was doing fairly well for themselves. He was the son of a freaking ranking navy officer and shortly after finishing up school he went into the war, shortly after that he met Cindy and had her money from then on. So essentially he went from being taken care of by his dad, to being taken care of by the navy then had a short stint where he had to be on his own. More importantly he has lived like the last 30-40 years as a rich man. Yes he probally has more of a sense of what the common man goes through then most people......but its gotta be hard to be in touch after 30 years as a millionare.

Besides the fact as I stated its a joke that Republicans are essentially knocking Dems teeth down their throat with cheap shots.....and you want to compare a slightly unfair comment by the Dem here adn there? No thats just insane. As iv stated and shown the Dems are taking shots but their mostly fair shots and the few that arnt are just stretching the truth. Republicans are essentially going for the throat then pouring salt in the wound.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I looked into what Obama was talking about when he said that, I guess I just thought of it differently. Anyway, this website says Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time in 2007 and 50% of the time in 2006. So we were both wrong ;)[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was using Obama's percentages for voting with the Democratic party for the "90%," but it makes sense that the party position actually only differed from Bush's on roughly on 2/3 of the votes: there are all the "we support person X, Y, or Z" resolutions that everybody votes for, etc. Good link.
 
bread's done
Back
Top