Much has been said about it. Much will continue to be said about it. I'm talking about the marginalisation of the GOP, or what's already being referred to as their possible demise on the national stage. On how they're becoming an rural, regional party. Having some theories on rural folks, that also extend to populism in general. I thought I'd stick my head out to let it be chopped off, hopefully stirring a thought or two in the process.
Populism, anti-intellectualism, and 'rural Conservatism'
As a person who's lived in small towns and big cities, in several nations, is that there's a distinction that can be made between what I call 'rural' conservatism and actual political conservatism. It's possible political scientists or sociologists already have a theory of this that I'm unfamiliar with, but the empirical observation stands nonetheless:
People in rural areas tend to be conservative, in the sense that they don't want things to change, or want change to occur 'on their terms'. Far from the centers of power, people feel less empowered, and this feeling of disenfranchisement often goes hand in hand with the inherent cultural differences inherent to small towns: Rural-versus-urban, homogeneity-versus-plurality, anti-intellectualism (as small towns and rural areas tend to have a lower proportion of highly-educated people) and general us-versus-them feelings.
As we all know, today's GOP has essentially cornered the market on this sentiment and demographic in the USA. It's the Party of Palin. It's easy then, to assume that this, 'rural Conservatism' as I call it, is linked to political (and often religious) conservatism. It certainly is the case in the USA and in fact, in most of the world, from Wyoming to Waziristan.
This assumption, however, is false. 'Rural' conservatism is not inherently linked to political conservatism. Rather, it is linked to whoever best presents themselves as the guardians of the status quo of rural life versus the evil outside influences they perceive as a threat. That is, whoever best plays the wedge politics, the 'us-versus-them' of rural and urban, of white-collar versus blue-collar, etc.
That game is not limited to any particular ideology. See, for instance, an electoral map of Sweden, where I lived for quite some time. You'll find that rural areas, such as the sparsely-populated northern parts, are overwhelmingly red, and urban areas, such as the cities and southern parts, are strongly blue. Much like the election maps of the USA, with one key difference: Red is the color of the left wing parties!
This isn't very surprising. Social democracy has been dominant in Swedish politics for so long, that they are now essentially viewed as the guardians of the status quo. Swedes identify themselves to a large extent with their welfare state, and it is its dismantling that is feared, rather than its creation.
Like rural folks in the USA, rural folks in Sweden share a feeling of disenfranchisement. The target of their anger has merely been shifted. In the former case, it's government taxation that's keeping them from getting their fair deal. In the latter, it's the lack of political re-distribution of wealth. Both are equally skeptical of 'sissy city-folk', and 'academics with their fancy degrees, sitting in ivory towers', to quote clichés that still hit close to the truth.
Before any country-folk take offense to this definition you should note, that as I use the term, there's nothing specifically rural about 'rural' conservatism. What I'm describing is rather a general attitude, one that tends to be more pronounced in rural areas. Obviously, living in a rural area does not, in itself, mean you're necessarily anti-intellectual, and so forth.
Social Democracy is not devoid of having such a rural, macho, populist and anti-intellectual strain. It extends over into Communism as well, on one hand the populist calls for revolution and hatred of capitalists (rather than capitalism) and on the other hand the intellectual rationales of Marxism. (Some would personify this conflict in the form of Trotsky-versus-Stalin)
Taking the opposite extreme: Fascism, on the other hand, is purely populist and anti-intellectual. It has no intellectual justification, and (from its world view) needs none.
Where'd it go?
As Saul Alinsky retold in a 1972 Playboy interview:
I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.
In the 1930's, the situation in the USA wasn't fundamentally different from that in Europe. Liberals, Social Democrats, Communists and the Worker's Movement were largely in concert. As Alinsky also explained, McCarthyism and the Red Scare effectively destroyed American Communism, and strongly set back American Social Democracy and Trade Unions, essentially leaving Liberalism as the sole political opponent to Conservatism.
Now, one of the greatest strengths of classical and modern Liberalism is its relatively broad appeal, something which is true in both Europe and the States. But that appeal doesn't extend much to the angry, disenfranchised, anti-intellectual crowd. It's simply too moderate. The stage was set for Conservatism to attract these crowds. For people who wanted a simple us-versus-them, 'Communists' made for an excellent 'them'. The Republicans embraced the 'rural conservative' crowd quite consciously, not least through Nixon's Southern Strategy. The remaining vestige of American Communism was the intellectual crowd: You'd be more likely to find a self-described Marxist among philosophy professors than among factory workers.
This didn't happen in Europe. The European left-wing parties, and Worker's Movement survived both Fascism and the Cold War threat of Communism. And they even survived the fall of Communism. Across Europe last Friday, May Day saw its traditional demonstrations and speeches, held by Social Democrats, rebranded former-Communists, still-Communists, Anarchists, Syndicalists and Trade Unions.
Now, most of these rallies were quite benign. Social democracy and trade unions are part of 'the establishment' now in most European countries. Their demands are often relatively moderate. They essentially constitute a display of solidarity, tradition, and a reminder of harder times past. But move to the 'hard' left, and you will still be able to find plenty of angry, populist, rallies.
Superficially, these rallies would appear to have nothing in common with the Fox News-sponsored 'Teabagging' events held recently. Politically, this is true. To the extent that any clear political message could be gleaned from the 'Teabag' rallies, their political demands were certainly entirely different.
But the politics of the 'Teabag' movement are rather incidental. Had they not been, they would have had a single, consistent message. If you scrape off the political surface and study the underlying motives and attitudes, a different picture emerges. Feelings of disenfranchisement, us-versus-them mentality, and anti-intellectualism abound. In this environment, the reactionary and revolutionary meet.
What does this mean for the GOP? A warning example.
Intellectuals often act as a 'voice of reason' in a political party. A moderating force against emotional populism and political extremes. As I noted earlier, European left-wing parties have always had an anti-intellectual streak. Yet they have remained viable political parties. This is because European intellectuals have almost exclusively been left-wingers. (E.g. Gunnar Myrdal, to give a Swedish example of notable impact on American politics, and Palme managed to ascend as a great Social Democratic leader 'despite' being a dyed-in-the-wool intellectual, from an upper-class background no less.) They may have occasionally strifed with the populist elements of their parties, but they were certainly tolerated.
Now, I believe there's an exception here, which is the UK's Labour Party. The UK is a very conservative country - in the 'rural conservative' sense; albeit being a quite urban population, it's rather due to the strongly ingrained class mentality. In the postwar period, UK intellectuals have often been as likely to be Liberals as Labour. The anti-intellectual streak of the Labour Party was strong, at least relative its comrades in Europe (the use of the word 'comrade', abandoned by many EU Soc Dems, is itself an example). Its 'conservative' streak was strong. Eventually, they overreached.
In 1979, Labour lost to Thatcher's Tories. Like the GOP is doing now, they reacted in very much the wrong way - by allowing the political edge (their left, the GOP's right) gain more power in the party, through the electon of Michael Foot, which provoked more centrist elements to split off, forming the Social Democratic Party (which subsequently merged with the Liberals in 1988 forming today's Lib Dems).
It required both a major political re-alignment, 'New Labour', and charismatic new leadership under Tony Blair to bring Labour back to power. It cost them one breakaway political party, 17 years of Tory rule and the uninspired leadership of John Major to bring them back into power. And the scars of this political struggle have yet to fully heal.
Is there hope for the GOP?
I don't know. It certainly seems they haven't taken to heart the example set by Labour. I believe they are doing a better job than Labour ever did in driving away both their moderates (e.g. Arlen Specter) and intellectuals (e.g. George Will).
Doing so is not only making them regional, marginalized and essentially un-electable. It's also setting them on a slippery-slope to Fascism. If voices of moderation and reason are disregarded or worse, shouted down, then the party will be lead by those who shout loudest: The demagogues.
Can such a party gain power? That's a frightening prospect, but one should never say never. In general, I would say no. But these kinds of tendencies often ride high in times of crisis, and we are in a time of great economic crisis. Should the legions of disenfranchised, as in truly disenfranchised people increase.
As Sinclair Lewis made the case during the Great Depression: It can happen here.
(To make another Sweden reference: first-Swedish-edition paperback of "It can't happen here" from 1936 that I found in a thrift shop there for a buck, and bought mostly for the great cover-art. The artist's name isn't given.)