When I think about the image that the Republican Party has somehow managed to sell, and then measure that image against what it is they actually stand for, I’m faced with some pretty glaring hypocrisies. I’ll wait while you pick up your jaw from off of the floor.
…
The one I really can’t get over though—this week, anyway—is how they’ve somehow managed to cast themselves as the tough guy party versus the sniveling chicken shit party of the Democrats.
You know the imagery; Reagan the cowboy commanding the Commies to tear down The Wall, a man in his Ford F-150 driving down a dirt road back to the house after a hard day’s work, the entrepreneur who came from nothing and made it on his own, the nuclear family coming out of church. If the Republicans could choose four defining portraits of their constituency they could do worse than the four described above. They’ve worked hard to sell the image, and the appeal is apparent, but it’s not what I think of when I consider the policies they stand for.
For the purposes of this diary I’m only going to focus on the first two. That is, the image of the Republican as the protector of the American people and the projector of American power—Reagan, more or less—and, the image of the strong, white, male, head of the family, who lives in the heartland and goes out and earns the money and then comes home to wife and family—the guy in the F-150. This is the rugged tough guy American. Whether kicking ass in foreign countries or doing so on the home front he is not to be fucked with.
In What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank explores the way in which Republican politicians emphasize contentious social issues, over all others, in an effective effort to manipulate people to vote against their own economic interests. The question Frank sought to answer was, how are the Republicans, whose economic policies so clearly favor such a small sliver of Americans, and who so blatantly prioritize economic policies over all others, effective in garnering broad support in elections? Screaming about gay marriage and abortion while deemphasizing economic policy was his answer. And that’s one way to do it.
But with the success of the Occupy Movement in bringing issues of economic injustice to the forefront of political discourse, Republicans can holler all they want about abortion and gay marriage and immigration, and they will, and some of it will stick, but they can’t muffle the national dialogue revolving around class. It’s permeated all sectors and it’s not going anywhere.
The Kansas tactic was basically a distraction strategy. When we'd go hiking in the hills my dad would use the same method to catch lizards. With one arm stretched way out to one side he would wiggle his fingers back and forth which would capture the lizard’s attention while he would creep up slowly with the other hand and grab him from behind. That’s what the Republicans did with wedge social issues. They were distractions. Effective ones. And they caught a shitload of lizards.
That won’t work now though. You can’t forget something this important. What was the matter with Kansas was that it didn’t know who it was economically and didn’t understand who it was voting for. There’s no hiding that anymore. It’s pretty clear now that Republican politicians, despite their tough talk about social issues, value economic policy above all, if not singularly. The ones with any power do anyhow. And it’s long been understood that they have no plans in tackling, while in office, the same social issues that are so effective in ginning up support from “values voters” during elections. I think—hope—that some of this is penetrating the bubble.
What I’m talking about here though is Madison Avenue stuff. Selling an image. Like Corona or Chevy. Political parties brand themselves. The rugged tough guy is one of the Republicans most effective marketing campaigns. It’s effective in convincing middle and lower class white males—mostly, though not exclusively—who don’t pay a lot of attention to politics, to choose between projecting an image of strength or an image of weakness by way of party identification.
This is the issue that I see heartland lower and middle class people struggling with. The cognitive dissonance that arises from, on the one hand, understanding that the Republican candidate really doesn’t give a shit about you at all, and on the other, associating Republicans with manliness and/or strength and Democrats with weakness. If there are any voters who have found Jesus in class consciousness, and I have to believe there are, then they are forced to choose between these two competing negative alternatives.
Fear not friend, there is a remedy for what ails you.
The image of the Republican as fearless bulwark against nefarious foreigners and domestic Dirty Harry is all bullshit and needs to be exposed. The Republicans are not the party of rugged tough guys. They’re the party of cowards.
Think about it. Republicans love guns and Liberals don’t. This much we know. And guns are normally associated with manliness, which is why men who want to be seen as manly, and don’t pay much attention to politics, choose to associate with the Right instead of the Left. Makes sense. But how does loving some crutch that says you’re frightened of other people a projection of strength? You own or carry guns out of fear that someone else may harm you. Liberals seem to be fine without them. Republicans are scared and Liberals aren’t. That’s how it breaks down. How the shit are Liberals the cowards in this scenario? Isn’t it more manly to walk down the street without a gun, being confident that you can handle whatever comes your way, and not being paranoid that everyone is out to get you? Damn straight it is. The cowards can keep their guns. We don’t need ‘em!
Same goes for war. The Right is terrified of everyone. The Iranians are coming to get us! The Afghans! The Libyans! The Iraqis! Holy shit it’s Grenada! We spend as much on our military—NOT DEFENSE!—as the rest of the world combined and still Republicans tremble and cower. Add in our allies, and we account for 60-75% of total military power. And still the Republicans are terrified. Liberals, secure in their manhood and not scared of any foreign nation, have the backbone to cut military expenditures. Sure we need a strong military. We’re just not frightened to the point that we need to rapaciously accumulate weapons like some paranoid strung out junky fearful that everyone’s coming to get us.
So get the word out won’t you my friend? Real Americans don’t need guns and aren’t scared of other countries. Slap that elephant on the ass and tell him to beat it. Wave goodbye to your cognitive dissonance. Real men ride donkeys. Giddy up.
*Edited becuase the p word has offended some folks.