The Class Symbolism of Presidential Politics

Some interesting thoughts on the rise of populism:

Presidents and Class Politics: An Exchange, by Chris Hayes: I’ve posted below an exchange I had with a reader about the class symbolism of presidential politics. I think the reader raises some interesting points:

From: Lawyer Guy To: Chris Hayes

As has been written about extensively, economic populism was a factor in the ‘06 elections... But what I am interested in is the resurgence of the populist method of campaigning and leadership. I do not really mean policy ideas; I mean the rhetoric and theater of the campaign trail. I think the revival starts with Clinton in 1992: the McDonald’s trips, the liberal quotation of bible passage, the oft-videographed jogs with the secret service. It continues with Bush’s carefully calculated folk-isms and speech patterns. It even affects folks like John Roberts and Alito in their confirmation hearings: think of how much humility was mentioned and discussed... Roberts himself must have used the word humble (or some variant thereof) a dozen times. ...[T]his phenomenon is not limited to the U.S... The populist campaign cares less about which college you went to (Harvard and Yale may be liabilities these days) and more about whether you worked a blue collar job to pay your way through college and how many bathrooms you had growing up on the farm.

I guess what I am interested in is what has inspired candidates to shun their elitism as a campaign positive and adopt the mantle of average-joe-ship. It’s hard to think of JFK or FDR or Reagan ever campaigning as an everyman, but such an image seems a necessity these days. The litmus test may be “Who would I want to drink a beer with” instead of “Who would I want to hear give the State of the Union address?”

I think part of the answer lies in the disintermediating effect of increased media attention and blogs... The idea being that the space between candidates and the voters is shrinking. The interaction with the candidate even 15 years ago seemed limited to personal appearances, the odd TV interview, and any debates that may occur. Now, it’s constant. Candidates seem aloof and elitist at their own peril (see, e.g., John Kerry, losing an election he had no business losing in part because he really just did not seem like a nice person).

But, I think the other part of the answer (and probably the more interesting part, because everyone talks about Blogs these days) is that these candidates maybe are not putting on a show. This really is their background (W. excluded; he really is putting on a show), and they are proud of it. So, the general idea is that while candidates may be no less rich than in days of yore, many more do come from less rich backgrounds, and they bring with them a very different cultural and economic perspective. Maybe a century of trying to open up politics to the true middle classes has succeeded. The question, of course, going forward is whether how far deep the populist roots run with folks like Webb and John Roberts and whether it translates to differences in policy. Time will tell.

From: Chris Hayes To: Lawyer Guy

I think you’ve definitely put your finger on something, which is what I’d call the Politics of Authenticity. Part of that has to do with the rise of the right-wing populism that Thomas Frank has identified, this kind of fetishization of “middle america” that was part of the conservative backlash and the correlated anger directed at the “liberal establishment.” For that reason, JFK could be far prouder of his Harvard pedigree than Kerry could be of his Yale years. I do think, as you note, that the 24 hour news cycle and blogs magnify this effect precisely for the reasons you mention.

But the most provocative point is that the class background of our presidential candidates have altered. In some senses that is undoubtedly true. In fact, the first elected president for whom this is most true is none other than Richard Milhouse Nixon, who graduated from the lowly Whittier College and was from a working class, Quaker family. There’s a case to be made that Nixon’s class animus and contempt for the establishment that always seemed to be shutting him out provided the structure for the kind of right-wing populist class politics that have become so familiar.

In terms of “regular guy-ness” the post-war economic changes and broad middle class prosperity those years brought produced a series of presidents who came from outside the traditional east coast establishment: Nixon (from California), Carter (from Georgia, though his family was well-off Southern gentry), Reagan (from Dixon, Illinois) and of course Clinton (from Hope, Arkansas). At the same time ..., I expect that while the regional composition of presidential candidates will continue to broaden, most elections for the next few decades will resemble 2004: Harvard v Yale, or some permutation thereof (Obama’s Columbia and Harvard, Hilary is Wellesley and Yale, Mitt Romney is Harvard law and Harvard MBA and the son of a senator). The Establishment, or what C. Wright Mills called “The Power Elite” has undergone a rigidifying in the past 20 or so years and there’s empirical data to back this up: class mobility has declined significantly during that time. But the result of this, I think, is that we’re going to cling even more strongly to the vision of the president you can “drink a beer’’ with. I think our class anxieties will still be given most of their outlet in the symbolic realm (rather than, say, taxing the wealthy)

The other aspect, in terms of authenticity, is the perceptive point you make about the degree to which candidates aren’t faking it when they play out these “blue collar” trappings. That, I think, is part and parcel of the formation of the socio-educational elite. Take myself for example. If I ever ran for office, it’d be pretty clear that I come from the socio-education elite: I went to Brown, and I move in all the circles of the highly educated etc. But I still conceive of myself very strongly as a working class kid from the Bronx. The point is that no one likes to see themselves as the product of privilege. And we all create identities for ourselves that are somehow dependent on our own outsider-ness and bootstrapping. So I see myself as a working class kid from the Bronx, who loves pick-up basketball and started working at age 14, even though that’s really only a very partial aspect of my full identity. The point is no matter how privileged someone has, they do the same thing. When Mr. Patrician himself, George H W Bush gave his nomination acceptance speech in 1988, he talked about striking out on his own, moving to Houston, “living the dream,” as if he was a poor immigrant from Mexico opening up a grocery store. Here’s the scion of one of the most politically connected families in America moving to Houston to strike it rich in the crony capitalist enterprise of Texas oil, and he’s portraying it as your standard American up-by-the-bootstraps story. That says a lot, I think.

Comments

[sa]

what's new?

[Isabel]

"But the most provocative point is that the class background of our presidential candidates have altered."

Is this really true? Let's say, in the 20th century?

[bakho]

The corporate media covers elections according to "cult of personality" not on the basis of policy. This corrupts the election process and allows politicians to sell their "personality" instead of the policy goals they intend to pursue. This has always been true in American politics. After all, a very popular general was the first US President. His policies turn out to be pretty good. However, few understood his policies at the time.

The influence of the corporate media and the "cult of personality" can be tempered somewhat by party institutions. These institutions can push back against personalities that have whacky policies or against attacks by the corporate media on politicians with sound policies.

Changes in the way presidents are selected in the primary that give more sway to voters at the polls and less to "party bosses" have changed elections from demostrating (through hard work for party institutions) that you are "one of the party" to a cult of personality where candidates have to establish a personality cult as "one of the people". While having a strong party and strong party institutions can be corrupting, we have seen that more "open" primaries that elevate the "influence of the media" has led to a corruption of the process through and by the media. The media is almost wholly owned by large corporate interests that do not support "populist" politics. The corporate media will push back against politicians that work against the interests of the corporations and promote politicians that support corporate interests. We see constant attacks by the corporate media on progressive environmentalist and foreign policy from the left and attacks on evangelical social policy on the right (which gives rise to claims that the media has a liberal bias).

Carter got hammered for stressing human rights in foreign policy as opposed to support for multinational exploitation. Carter got hammered for supporting energy conservation that worked against the economic interests of Big Oil. (The corporate media receives a lot of advertising revenue from Big Oil). The corporate media hammered Gore whose environmental views were totally at odds with the interests of Big Oil. (Abolish the ICE, energy conservation, alternative fuels, etc.). The corporate media destroyed any hopes Gore had of establishing a likeable personality by attacking his accomplishments from service in Vietnam to writing the legislation that funded projects leading up to the internet. Meanwhile, the coporate media helped establish the fictional "personailty" of Bush as a Texas Rancher and simple guy. The media, especially TV is all about image representing substance. TV will adopt image "narratives" to substitute for the more difficult discussion of policy. Images are open to manipulation and corruption. Thus, Reagan was a popular president but his policies were unpopular. When bad and unpopular policies cannot be ignored then the personality goes out the window and voters pay more attention to policy, for instance the 1992 and 2006 elections.

Clinton inspired a very well funded attack by the corporate media that started before the election, (accelerated when he started pursuing changes to health care that would harm the insurance industry, tax increases that hurt the wealthy corporate elites, an increase in the Federal gas tax opposed by big oil) and continues to this day.

Howard Dean and other reformers in the Democratic Party are pushing back against the "cult of personality" and establishing party institutions, for instance, providing money for organizers at the state level. Like the early union movement and populist movements of the past in the US, it is clear that the corporate media is no friend to populism and will work to defeat populists that do not support their interests or the interests of their sponsors. The rise of populist candidates among Democrats is happening because the candidates must capture the support of the new populist party institutions that are on the rise. The corporate media was absolutely shocked when media darling Joe Lieberman lost his primary to a populist challenger. The rise of populist institutions within the party is necessary to counter the corrupting influence of the corporate media that peddles cult of personality and facilitates the election of candidates that are out of touch with the voters.

On the Republican side, has been the rise of populist para-party institutions. Evangelicals and their institutions like Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc have created a populist wing of the Republican Party around social issues. As this faction has risen in power, it is necessary for GOP politicians to represent this part of their base. While differences between the Chamber of Commerce Republicans and Evangelical-populists are often papered over at the national level, at the state level, the two wings are often in open warfare. In some states (Kansas) the open warfare has led to defections by the CoC wing of the GOP to the Democrats.

The rise of the internet and blogs where people can discuss issues is doing a lot to counter the corporate media focus on personality while ignoring policy.

Mark deserves thanks and praise for providing a forum that allows discussion of the intersection of economics and politics.

[yartrebo]

I'm guessing I'm probably in the minority, but all I care about is the platform and how likely I feel the party/candidate is to honor it once elected. If the candidate is in favor of stuff I like, then they're likely to get my vote.

That's why the Democrats and Republicans have never gotten my vote. I'm willing to vote for them, if only they'd support some of my positions (stuff like reigning in corporations and the military, environmental issues, racism, sexism, classism, no death penalty, etc). On the stuff I really care about, the Democrats just totally flunk.

[Bruce Webb]

Yes and William H Harrison was born in a log cabin

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh9.html

"The Whigs, seizing on this political misstep, in 1840 presented their candidate William Henry Harrison as a simple frontier Indian fighter, living in a log cabin and drinking cider, in sharp contrast to an aristocratic champagne-sipping Van Buren.

Harrison was in fact a scion of the Virginia planter aristocracy. He was born at Berkeley in 1773. He studied classics and history at Hampden-Sydney College, then began the study of medicine in Richmond."

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. There is nothing new under the sun. Used cliches on aisle 9.

[callahan]

So long as the media, and big business realize that it is the middle class who supports them, and therefore should not be trodden to death, then I have no complaints, wouldn't do me any good anyway.

Business as usual, only half of us vote anyway.

[evagrius]

I think the emphasis on "character" and "personality" in U.S.presidential politics is a result of the reduced role that political parties play.
Other democracies have parliamentary systems. The prime minister is an elected member of parliament and must answer to parliament in often rowdy debates. The prime minister is the head of the party that has won the most seats in the parliament. Hence there can't be the split government that has characterized U.S. federal politics.

People vote for a party, not a personality. Personality plays a role, to be sure, but it's the party that dominates the politics.

The U.S. president is a quasi-monarch, something that Washington counseled against.

[Bruce Wilder]

I'm with Bruce Webb in thinking that populist appeal (and, not incidentally, the tension between populist appeal and calls for deference to elite authority) is nothing new in American politics. It has deep roots.

I'm with bakho in thinking that the dominance of television, the consolidation of Media into a corporate, right-wing monolith, along with the associated decline of journalism as a profession under the pressure of a star system, which makes millionaire pundits and news anchors the tribunes of the people, might have something to do with it.

The larger parts of all political persuasion are not the logical syllogisms of Aristotle. The arrogant few, who, like yatrebo, demand alignment on "issues", are left out of the two party system. Rather, it is a matter of hypnotism and tribal identification.

I am particularly mystified that the role of resentment in the politics of populist style is not more often mentioned, because that is what distinguished Kerry from Bush. Kerry was genuine, and that is what did him in; being genuine seems fake, to people raised on Hollywood set-pieces. Resentment hates the genuine hero, the genuine achiever, the earnestness of the do-gooder. Republicans discovered in Nixon the value of a calculated appeal to mediocrity and resentments and in Reagan the value of the complete, lying fake. And, Republicans have discovered in the Karl Rove Bush, the value of projective politics: attack your rivals for having your weaknesses. It has been a remarkable evolution of the dark side of identity politics.

[ken melvin]

What jack says about Jill says more about Jack than is does Jill. Bush has made a career of accusing others of having his faults.

says...

Evagrius - you are partly correct about the parliamentary system - however some americanism's are creeping into the Canadian system whereby "the party" selects a leader. The leader then consolidates power and controls perks and appointments, with the leader answering not to the MP's but "the party."

MP's do on occasion rise up - like when they knifed Dame Thatcher in Britain - but in general in Canada we have not seen an open revolt of MP's for a long time.

From an operational perspective there are a couple of downsides to having MP's control the process - what about ridings where there is no MP in your party - and the MP's becomes susceptable to third party closed door wheeling and dealing - kinda like the US Senate.

[bakho]

Good comment Bruce. With the fake, the glory is all moonshine. The real comes with warts in the sunlight.

[dissent]

I think the politics of personality is based on a strategy of flattery. Voters are cultivated not through their interests but through flattery. Bush's 'guy' routines did so much for him, the sense people had that they could have a beer in the corner tavern with this dude. This made voters feel good about themselves - they know they're dumb in the ways Bush is dumb. But they thought it didn't matter. Voting for Bush was an act of confidence in ordinary-Joe dumbness.

I think this strategy became ascendant because the society was largely middle-class, and most people did not have survival type worries. That is changing. The populism of Webb in Virginia is not the populism of down-home Dubya. Putting them in the same category obscures the differences.

The reason a all-personality-all-the-time strategy cannot work in a time of genuine economic insecurity is that it is vulnerable to attack. Its positives remain: fostering a sense of personal relation to the candidate. But its negatives are potentially devastating: you're out of touch with the struggles and insecurities that my family faces. Today the Bush family franchise has a reduced value, in part because of this.

[john c. halasz]

Er, resentment has always been and is always part and parcel of mass politics. To pretend otherwise is to clothe oneself in fake aristocratic virtue. It's a question rather of how those resentments are directed and whose resentments count. One thing that has always puzzled me about the rise of the Republican right-wing hegemony is the way it has been fueled and motivated by the resentment of the well-off, if not downright affluent, for the less fortunate and the weirdly inverted appeal that has fostered identification among some of those who, against their better interests, have little left to lose.

[fiskhusjim]

1) The faking of authenticity is clearly related to the faking of sincerity - and who has ever faked sincerity better on any issue than ol' GWB? Yes, absolutely, the foolish folks who voted for Bush did so on the basis that they'd rather have a beer with him than whoever his opponent was. Of course, they're NOT taking into account the fact that GWB would kill himself before he had to drink a beer with a poor person. (The rich folks who voted for GWB are the only ones who did so on the basis of self-interest; he has made them immeasurable richer).

2) Nixon was more "common" - however, he was recruited to run for the Senate from Orange County by none other than the elitists Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman. So, clearly, the elite is still cowering behind the curtain. Too bad we still pay attention to them.

3) the elite has rigidified over the past 25 years - at the same time that the pseudo-religious antiintellectuals have rigidified - and for the same reason: reagan and the other ReTHUGliKKKans have promoted a politics of separatism (related to the racism of the Massive Resisters, clearly) and alienation - both factors that calcify the vile in a society.

[calmo]

Thank you for that detail, fisk Nixon was more "common" - however, he was recruited to run for the Senate from Orange County by none other than the elitists Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman. as I did not realize those bankers and military suppliers for the Nazis until 1942 were busy cultivating tricky Dicky...the Bush family has clout.
I'm not sure I get your distinction between authenticity and sincerity, but I do know that the media will be the final editor in any public pronouncements you care to make. [Same for that distinction between populist and whatever the corporate media call their side.]
What else do I know? That you and I and others who are interested will make this determination of genuineness...not the media. We can still disagree and not make a determination, but the key is, I think, that it is a decentralized (and maybe always unofficial?) business. Resident philosophers or readers of personal identity issues (hey it happens) might wade in here...and save me some more embarrassment.

Roughly, I want to argue the case, the estranged and compliant audience, chiefly by ensuring that there is no hooting. (vs: I demand you be able to hoot me down...even on this touchy point.) That the audience are paid performers (as per Bush stumps) and that the larger networked audience is without recourse: the TV is a source not a receiver, the TV is an educator, not an element that can be educated/corrected/improved. That 40% participation is the result. That compared to your dear Marmar, the public candidates have a long way to go to be considered genuine or sincere.


I recently saw a very bad movie (this is why I see very few, people) with a friend who had a different view and was quite moved by this adolescent schict (ok, sure, the title as a public service: The Depraved) [where the 5 seconds to salvage are Nicholson's Rat Act] . I don't think I'm extra educated, worldly wise, or even quick, you know?
I B normal.
Self-respectingly smart, reasonably, (but not stunningly), observant and ready to make adjustments...not like some.
But I don't think my friend is a half-wit either, so I'm sure he just had a bad day and was predisposed to paranoia, any dialog whatsoever and generally, reliving his adolescent life like the director and producers. I did straighten him out on this (it goes the other way too --I can be straightened out. It happens.) which is the difference, yes? When was the last time the media got straightened out? And who was doing the straightening?

Well, it was the last election.

And I'm still hopeful that this little ember will grow into something genuinely uplifting...yeah not with the media where it is and controlled by so few hands. [Don't depress me only 9 days into the promising New Year, people!]

I'm with Bruce Wilder (except maybe with this bitThe arrogant few, who, like yatrebo, demand alignment on "issues", are left out of the two party system. because I need to see more than 2 stupid parties, you know?) who's with Bruce Webb (but I do want to note, ("something new under the sun" --sunglasses!) that back in those good old days, people, way more than half of them, actually voted (see callahan is making a not-so-cynical point) and I want to hear more about the machinery devoted to presenting Harrison to that curious, keen, but alas, uninformed public vs the machinery in the Information Age) who's with bakho (Is there anyone who is not with bakho?) {Can't I find the least little unsychophantic thing in his windy post?) This is so hopefulThe rise of the internet and blogs where people can discuss issues is doing a lot to counter the corporate media focus on personality while ignoring policy. and just being able to type it out helps, but seriously...(see? I need the hopeful cookies bakho is chewing on, you?)

Ok, enough windy hooting.

[Lafayette]

CH: "I expect that while the regional composition of presidential candidates will continue to broaden, most elections for the next few decades will resemble 2004: Harvard v Yale, or some permutation thereof "

This is a sad commentary on American politics and America's particular version of class struggle: Someone from a Harvard class versus someone else from a Yale class.

This is democracy? For the rich, yes. But not for the common man or woman, who could care less about where someone’s diploma was from - as if it were a title of aristocracy or pedigree. Enough of this, it has led to the sort of blinded faith in American capitalism that has only widened income inequality. These people (Obama aside) are NOT working class - just look a the makeup of today's Congress and particularly thier net worth.

For the rich, politics is a dalliance, an intermezzo, a way of "doing something" in an othewise carefree life devoid of any real challenge. Being rich is not all that it’s cracked out to be, especially when one need not worry about workaday problems like paying the mortgage and the electricity; or who will deliver/fetch the kids to/from school and what is the quality of that secondary school education.

As well, will someone please explain why a college degree is the sine qua non prerequisite for a legislative candidature? Is it some sort of innoculation against cupidity, cronyism, misfeasance or malfeasance?

If these people do not know the price of a bus ticket in the poorest section of town, what can you expect of them in terms of fundamentally understanding the needs and concerns of ordinary people? Even if not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, once rich they will have forgot the misery of being poor and the real challenge of just making ends meet in a middle-class existence.

They are the New American Plutocracy and their only concern will be the status quo that guarantees the well-being not of you and I, but their financial investments that permit them a life that the rest of us shall never ever know.

In the face of such a plutocracy there is only one recourse, that is, the extended use of the referendum such that people take real responsibility for deciding questions that determine not only their lives but their destinies.

Representational government was conceived in a time when a Congress was hundreds if not thousands of miles geographically from the population. The Internet has killed distance and those citizens who are really interested in the issues and matters that decide thier lives can easily vote on them by such means.

Is there a precedent? Yes there is. Switzerland, quite possibly the most democratic country on earth, has employed referendums for over 150 years. No Swiss citizen has seen yet a referendum that destablized the central government of Switzerland. And, referendums have the marvelous ability to make politicians think twice about what they propose for a vote into law.

[Lafayette]

"(The corporate media receives a lot of advertising revenue from Big Oil)."

Anybody who believes the stupidity they see in commercial media advertizing/commentary in the US today deserves to be manipulated.

You cannot believe the reporting the crops up on European television regarding America that never ever makes it to American screens. It's an eye-opener for any American who comes to live here and has the time (about a year) to cull/see the best of them.