> I was immediately struck by the fact that race
> was never mentioned in this article -- not once.
> In my view the core to understanding the US
> rightwing appeal to 'backlash' is racism, pure
> and simple.
Bro. Grimes is a man after my own heart. I have said precisely this in the past.
Chuck Munson:
> Chuck, do you know any Dittoheads or people
> who watch Fox News constantly? I suggest
> you talk to people like this and observe how
> often race comes up. Not very often.
Bro. Munson, however, is kidding himself. Race rarely has to "come up" explicitly, because racism is in the very fabric of this society. The default mode for racists these days is the "I'm not a racist, but . . . " style of argument -- no, not even that, the fiery indignation that whites have immediately when the subject of race even comes up. Read the papers: which topic produces the most indignant letters to the editor from the rank-and-file right wing? Which topic attracts the creepiest codeword-laden bile from both right- wing shock jocks AND their listeners? They're insulted at the very idea that racism is even brought up. "How dare you say I'm a racist!"
I'm reading Frank's book these nights, and I'm about midway through. It's entertaining and has a lot of insights, particularly about Kansas where Frank presents some compelling concrete information (e.g., about how electoral statistics show the fight within the Kansas Republican Party mapping onto class divisions, with the country- clubbers favoring the "moderates" and the less-affluent areas favoring the bible-thumpers). But the fact is that Kansas is NOT typical of the US. It is far too white. Therefore the backlash in Kansas may indeed emphasize the "cultural" elements that Frank talks about moreso than elsewhere in the country. But the rank-and-file right in most other states -- certainly in the South -- is motivated by race and racism, and it's in places where white supremacy needs to be defended directly, from the PRESENCE of people of color, where this is most obvious in political fights over crime, housing, property taxes, schools, etc. Of course racists these days don't dress up in Klan robes and rant about preserving white womanhood, but only an idiot -- or a racist -- would deny that race is present in these political fights. In most cases, in fact, they're pretty much all about race.
Kansas is peculiar in that -- as Frank points out -- it actually has a rebel heritage, even a rebel anti-racist one, as exemplified by abolitionists up to and including John Brown, who fought the racist invaders from Missouri in "bleeding Kansas." Despite the relative absence of people of color, however, it's still delusional to imagine that the white supremacist political economy of the country AS A WHOLE has no impact on Kansan voting patterns and political behavior generally. Race may not be uppermost in their MINDS, but Kansas voters are FUNCTIONAL racists when they support the Republican party. This is the way the world -- and particularly this country -- works.
Like I said, I'm halfway through the book, and Frank has yet to talk much about the details of the political struggles in the western Kansas towns where large numbers of immigrants from Latin America work in places like the meatpacking plants. (Maybe he does later in the book?) Here is where the incipient racism of rural whites who have never had much contact with people of color will face the test of actual proximity to nonwhite people. Using my own frame of reference, I would say this is the place where the kind of racism that's prominent in central Pennsylvania (crude and ignorant, manifesting itself politically in rural resentment against Pittsburgh and especially Philadelphia) will morph into the kind of racism that's more prominent in Pennsylvania suburbs and cities (usually less crude but -- in my experience -- even more vicious, since it's heightened by the proximity of a perceived nonwhite threat).
- - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!