The American political landscape is littered with examples of one group pitted against another. One such divide is what some on the right call the "culture war." As they frame it, this is a battle between salt of the earth "real" Americans who believe in traditional values, and their opponents, referred to as "liberal elites," whose views are more progressive, and who tend to live on either coast, especially in large metropolitan areas. For about the last forty-five years, the rivalry between these two factions has had very important electoral implications, raising the significance of this debate beyond just competing schools of thought in the marketplace of ideas.
Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.
That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.
The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.
Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."
