VERY interesting Buzzflash interview

UC Berkeley Sociologist Arlie Hochschild answers the question, "Why are 50% of Blue Collar White Males Planning to Vote for Bush in 2004, Even When He is Picking Their Pockets and Stealing the Futures of Their Children?"

BuzzFlash: In this age, when liberals are accused of being politically correct, the right-wing movement is probably even more of a practitioner of political correctness on many accounts. And Bush can't communicate directly to the white male about how he stands for the white male being on top, so there's a lot of coding going on, it seems. And much of this is subliminal, because Bush can't say, well, I keep Laura in her place, but --

Hochschild: You never see her. She's in a lockbox.

BuzzFlash: And she's always walking behind him and is carefully scripted to say as little as possible. If she says anything, it's once or twice a month, and it's a sentence or two, or maybe a highly controlled interview. In their relationship, she symbolizes the woman who is always deferential to the husband. And Bush himself, although he comes from entitlement, in many ways he shows that the more he fails, the more secure maybe white males feel who are feeling uncomfortable with their position, because he's still the President of the United States. It is a reinforcement of all of the white males -- that no matter how much they screw up, they're still head of the family.

Hochschild: I think that's a really very perceptive remark. Bush is a kind of a Dagwood, you know? However awkward and wrong-headed, he's still the head of the family.

BuzzFlash: That may be reassuring to blue collar males. I won't be just thrown out of my family if I cheat, or if I spend my money drinking, because I'll come back and ultimately I'm the head of the family and I'll be forgiven. It's a patriarchal archetype that the male head of the household is always forgiven his failings.

Hochschild: Bush is the upper-class mess-up who ends up on top anyway. It is subliminal: If you mess up, don't worry. The reason that becomes important, I think, is that we live in a culture of individualism. And if you lose a job, it's your fault you lost the job. It's your credit if you do well, and your fault if you do badly. And so for him to be the mess-up that gets ahead anyway is sort of an end-run around this whole burdensome ideology of individualism.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/12/int03326.html

I found this very interesting...

she's attractive, charismatic and smarter than 99.9 percent of guys on the planet. The good ol' boys can't handle that kind of stuff.

unattractive, dull and dumb women??!! :D

Women are to be used and martyred, not "heard"....or didn't you get the memo? The old "Stand By Your Man" routine.

It's the repuke way!!

Mentally healthy couples stand together, and each contribute their strengths and talents. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.


:kick:

Where is the data showing her in the 99.9th percentile of intelligence. I know she had good marks in school but didn't know she was up there with Hawkings and Einstine.

figure of speech

OK, maybe the top 95th percentile. We can give the other 4.9 percent to Hawking and Einstein. I don't know if Hawking has an opinion on G.W. Bush, but if Einstein were alive, the Bush administration would be busy trying to smear him.

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation."

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth who refuse military service."

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses their intelligence"

-all attributed to A. Einstein

I haven't read the entire interview yet but the snippet you posted is very interesting. I'm glad to see that others have noticed the fact that Laura is always walking BEHIND her husband. What country and century is this?

...the patriarchal overtones that shape these buffoons' collective loyalty to the Ruthugs and Bu$h in particular even while he screws them and their families over. Jeeeeeeeeeze!

especially:"the blue collar support of Bush isn't based on facts; indeed, many of these blue-collar males are aware of the facts. But Bush is offering something else. He's offering them, as you say, confidence in reestablishing their role in the center of the patriarchal world.

It's not just white blue collar males--men of color who have to prove both their masculinity and racial equality are often also agressively pro-Bush.

This isn't a new phenomenon: I have for many years always wondered why blue collar workers consistently voted against their own interests. Why are they republicans in the first place and why are they anti-union when unions are their last resort of protection?

"How CAN they vote for Bu$h? Don't they see how bad his policies are for them?"

It has to be what ThomC said, or the patriarchal thing, or a combination of both. Jeeeez. This gets down to the 'there's no difference between a D and a R' argument. Of course we know there is, but if these workers don't appreciate those differences, for whatever reasons, it's of little consequence.

and all the hypocrisy surrounding her role as First Lady and Hillary Clinton. I like Hillary Clinton. She is smart and outspoken. She got so much crap in the media for accepting Bill's indiscretions.If the situation were reversed, George cheated on Laura and she decided to stay with him and not say a word, the media and right wing would be singing her praises from the rooftops for being a good, forgiving wife. It's disgusting.

She's also supposed to be a librarian, as I am. Yet several of the Patriot Act provisions are directly opposed to librarian's work, and she did not say a thing. Her profession must not mean much to her anymore.

Plus, whenever she appears in the media, it looks like she has taken too much valium or xanex. Nothing wrong with taking xanex or valium...but something about Laura Bush just ain't right.

That was the best article I have read to date
that explains (frames) the problems the democratic
leadership has facing it. I have been saying for
a long time that our party needs to work on the
art of persuasion, and getting media outlets
to present their persuasions.
If they don't start doing this I don't see a lot
of hope for the Dem party. In the 60's half the
population believed they were democrat. Now its
down to a third and we are still losing numbers.
The repugs are expert at marketing their image,
dems are just awful at it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9689-2003Dec17?language=printer

Tough Time For Democrats (washington post)
By Tina Brown
Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page C01

American myths of masculinity draw on the strong, silent archetype -- John Wayne and Gary Cooper, later Charles Bronson and Charlton Heston, and more recently the subarticulate comic book action heroes like Sylvester Stallone and, yes, Ahnuld. American portraits of maleness have always favored instinct over intellect, action over reason. Rhett over Ashley. Patton over Marshall. Kirk over Spock. In this context, Bush's frat-boy past and Arnold's "playful" girl groping (never mind that it looks like creepy power-mongering when you really examine it) qualify as youthful expressions of the same testosterone that makes for grown-up action heroes. By comparison, Howard Dean's choleric outbursts look like Elmer Fudd spluttering, and the aristocratic let-us-reason-together authority of John Kerry comes across as lack of muscle tone.
"Good riddance" may not be a particularly eloquent thing for Bush to say about Saddam -- but comic-strip heroes don't have to be eloquent. In his interview with Diane Sawyer, Bush was like a guy in a sports bar, not much inclined to big-think. Dirty Harry doesn't talk much, and always in words of one syllable, but while the police commissioner is still fretting about getting a proper search warrant Harry has already offed the bad guy with his great big pistol.

<snip>

But more to the point, from Arlie's Colleague, George Lakoff, who is trying to combat the Conservative advantage...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Grok

The interview with George Lakoff is excellent and has some very relevent thoughts about the differences between conservatives and progressives that more DUers should know about, particularly regarding the framing of language. Could you post the link under a new/separat thread?

<EOM>

He tells me that at their last club meeting (ATV and snowmobile club) where there were about 750 members present they discussed the recent closures of many miles of their trails and how the local and distant environmental groups were working closely with Democratic lawmakers to help close these trails. Bear in mind most of these members are BC union workers with long family histories of electing Democrats and now nearly all have concluded that there is not enough difference between D and R to continue voting D when all they feel they are getting is run out of the woods.

...they sort of sound like Republicans if all they care about is not being able to snowmobile in the woods. How about jobs, the future, their kids future, education, healthcare, etc? I can sort of understand their ire, but seems they're missing the big picture here...

they might say the same thing that so many people like them have said to me: that neither party really cares about people like them.

Given how both parties have collaborated in exporting their jobs ("free trade"), they have some reason to feel that way.

And if you feel that neither party has your economic interests at heart but one at least pretends to respect you while the other dismisses you as "trailer trash" and "patriarchist buffoons," then which party will you support?

For me, the marvel is not that so few blue-collar workers vote Democratic, but that so many bother to vote at all.

...it underscores that Dems really really need to delineate themselves from Rethugs in this way. Clinton approved the NAFTA thing and I was SO pissed at him for that. It's unfortunate that Democrats are (not as bad as Rethugs but they still are) so in bed with the corprats. I have some of those blue-collars in my family who don't bother to vote at all. They are directly and negatively affected by Bu$hit's policies but they won't vote. I've tried to get them to but they won't. The reasons they give is similar to those you wrote about above.

Still, however, I think the patriarchal resentment of 'others' being in the workforce and wanting them to 'go back where they came from' does have some bearing on these blue-collar workers' collective attitudes. It may not be the whole problem, but I think it is still part of the problem. My Dad was of that patriarchal mindset and I've seen it - it is a real thing among blue-collar guys (and he was one of them).

both on the need for Dems to set themselves apart from Republicans and also on the patriarchy business. I wouldn't say that it's not a factor, but it's definitely not the only factor. That's why I think the article is interesting, but I can't get too excited about it. I'm around academics all the time, so I know plenty of people who think that everything is all about the patriarchy, and others who think that everything is all about social class, and others who think that everything is all about race, etc. The world is about all those things, and more, so I am always suspicious of simple explanations.

I'm not so sure that's such a good idea.

I posted a response to another when I meant
to thank you for the great link.....
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml


That was the best article I have read to date
that explains (frames) the problems the democratic
leadership has facing it. I have been saying for
a long time that our party needs to work on the
art of persuasion, and getting media outlets
to present their persuasions.
If they don't start doing this I don't see a lot
of hope for the Dem party. In the 60's half the
population believed they were democrat. Now its
down to a third and we are still losing numbers.
The repugs are expert at marketing their image,
dems are just awful at it.

How many white guys do you know who expect their wives to walk behind them?

If anything, I think it might appeal to certain immigrant populations; I used to work in a big middle-class tourist trap halfway between NYC & Montreal and saw my share of Indian groups where the women stayed 20 feet behind their men.

Maria Shriver shot her mouth off plenty during the Cali election, and it didn't hurt Arnold's chances with blue-collar WMs a bit.

Having Laura walk behind George isn't suppose to say "women should walk behind the man". What it does do is use subtle messages to illustrate who the head of the household is.

The first paragraph in the interview talks about how Republicans can't come out and say "women are inferior to men" because it would be socially unacceptable. Therefore they must enforce this belief by depicting Laura as the prime example of how they think a woman should act...women should be looked at, not heard. Polite smile, non-combative, a follower. Weaker. Submissive and supportive to her husband on every subject.

I don't know about other women, but I'm extremely sensitive to stuff like this and it's nice to hear a sociologist come out and voice this very topic. Laura has been coached to symbolize the anti-Hillary and, on a bigger scale, the anti-post feminist American woman.

and plain old 'small r' Republicans, too, for that matter. The two-three groups are simply not of the same cloth. I don't disagree about Laura being used as the anti-Hilary, but to broadly say that Republicans and Blue Collar white guys think of their wives as subservient is just crap.

that's a good point.

there doesn't seem to be much interest here in looking at the reality of the people we are discussing. It's much more fun just to cluck our tongues knowingly at antics of the patriarchalist buffoons.

But you're right. Few Blue Collar Joes can afford a stay-at-home wife, for example, what with having had several jobs exported out from under them. And genuine blue collar women tend to be pretty tough--of necessity--not all meek and submissive. Lots of those women are now working two jobs and trying to keep their families together because their National Guardsmen husbands are in Iraq.

In my experience, the guys who want their wives to stay at home and have lots of babies--like Sharon Yates--tend to be affluent fundies, like Mr. Yates. And, contrary to what we hear at DU, there are lots of affluent fundies, and these people have nothing to do with Blue Collar Joe.

You're right. We're trying to combine several distinct groups of people into one big lump here.

there doesn't seem to be much interest here in looking at the reality of the people we are discussing. It's much more fun just to cluck our tongues knowingly at antics of the patriarchalist buffoons.

Carry on.

about some of the comments I've seen--you know, the ones about how "they" want "their women" to behave and all that.

I think you had an excellent point--that's why I replied.

Ever catch the Dave Allen show? An Irish comic-host, my PBS station used to broadcast right after Benny Hill.

Fave joke from there:

three gentlemen were having the discussion on what it is to be the epitome of class.

The first one offered this scenario: "the epitome of class is, when a gentleman walks in on his wife making love with another man, and quietly leaves and closes the door."

The second one disagreed: "no, the epitome of class is when a gentleman walks in on his wife making love to another man and says, 'Excuse me. Carry on,' and leaves."

The third one said: "no, the true epitome of class is when a gentleman walks in on his wife making love to another man, says 'Excuse me, carry on,' and leaves. The man who, after that, CAN carry on, now that is the epitome of class."

How can you not like a lump in the bed? Somebody called her that the other day and really made me laugh. Didn't Smirk write a poem about the lump in the bed? I remember something about that. LOL!

Along with "them, "these guys," and other formulations that express distance from the subject.

That illustrates very nicely a problem with both the interview and with most discussions of the working class at DU: we tend to approach "those guys" as something very distant and strange. As I said in the locked thread, we talk about them as though they were a South Pacific cargo cult, rather than a very large chunk of our own country and society and, at one time, the bulk of our party.

Since many Democrats are now so distant from the working class, discussions tend to consist of mostly stereotyping, as in the slams on "trailer trash" that generally pass unremarked here, or long-distance psychoanalysis, as in this interview.

Is it really too much to ask that someone ask some real live blue-collar workers about their voting behavior and report on it? It's not like there's a shortage of Joe Sixpacks or anything.

but then nobody did.

Like I said, it would be a lot more interesting for someone to interview some of those blue-collar guys and ask why they vote as they do. That would be worth a lot more, in practical terms, than a sociologist babbling about the patriarchy.

...about what some of them in Michigan are saying. It would definitely be more meaningful if someone got a roomful of these workers and asked them directly why they vote like that. The Democratic candidates should be doing that in fact....