George Wallace famously said that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republicans and Democrats, and Newt Gingrich must have agreed with him when George I cut his infamous tax deal with the Democrats—a highly beneficial deal that contributed greatly to the prosperity the country enjoyed during the nineties, but no matter. Gingrich was close to unknown in 1990, and in no position to take the issue to the country, but someone else was able to take the “dime’s worth of difference” message nationwide, and that man was another little guy, Ross Perot.
The end of the Cold War put American politics in a state of flux the likes of which no one could remember. Instead of huge issues, there were no issues. And yet, people were mad as hell, and weren’t going to take it any more. Why?
My Perot theory is that he tapped what was largely “northern” discontent. Modern American politics can be seen as a product of the Civil War. The Republicans, once the anti-Southern party, had changed roles, and now represented the descendents of the slave-owners, transmogrified into southern white evangelicals, while the Democrats represented the descendents of the slaves, and their abolitionist allies. In the northern tier of states, with few evangelicals and few blacks, or minorities of any kind, American politics seemed a battle full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, but being paid for with their money.
Tea Party folks sound a lot like Perot Party folks—and Sarah Palin, again, is lot like Perot, down to his amateurishness and inability to handle “unfair” criticism. Like Perot and Palin, they tend to be amateurs, who can’t understand how any honest person could disagree with them. But Perot was a surprisingly secular candidate—his statement that “people ain’t rabbits” was somehow supposed to mean that he was free-choice—and the Tea Party folks tend to be explicitly evangelical. So what’s happening?
I’d say that all of the “old time religions” in the U.S. have been pushed to the right. Jews were massively turned off by George I’s “even-handed” approach in the Middle East. (Secretary of State James Baker’s realpolitik assessment of the matter—“Fuck the Jews. They never vote for us anyway”? Definitely not helping.) But if they loathed the father, they adored the son, and detested the Democrats. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor surely regards President Obama as a greater danger to Israel than Iran and Saudi Arabia combined.
The Catholics have also moved. The Church’s role in the near-demolition of the Democrats’ health reform package has never been adequately reported. The Catholic hierarchy—what’s left of it—once dependably liberal on economic issues, now sees everything through the prism of sexual morality, and seen through that prism the Democrats are the party of Sodom.
I’d say that it’s because all the conservative religious groups—Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish—are lining up in favor of the Republicans that religious issues have become so politicized. In the old days, the religious groups that were most conservative on social matters—Catholics and southern evangelicals—were the most liberal on economic matters. To a large extent, that’s changed.
But not entirely. Tea Party folks still love their Social Security and their Medicare. They may be better off than the average American, but that’s simply because they’re almost all white, and white folks, on average, are ahead of non-white folks in almost every category. They’re not poor, but they’re not rich. I’m hoping that will keep Rick Perry out of the White House.
Afterwords
Politico hopefully takes a little paint off of Rick’s big shiny Cadillac here.
