Is there a contradiction between Mike Huckabee's cultural conservatism and his trumpeting of endorsements from icons of, well, trash culture like Chuck Norris, Ric Flair and Ted Nugent? Adam Thierer makes a strong case, but Reihan isn't so sure.
« The Case For Religious Discrimination | Main | The Trouble With Heroic Conservatism, Cont. » Chuck Norris and the Culture War27 Nov 2007 04:29 pm Comments (18)
Not only is this not a contradiction, it's perfectly consistent with what Huckabee represents. The guy used to work for a televangelist. That's pretty much the definition of trash television. Huckabee's brand of fundamentalist populism and professional wrestling probably appeal to similar demographics. The word "redneck" resolves any apparent contradiction. 
Look, Chuck Norris never showed his junk. He just killed a whole lot of communists. So it's OK. And who cares if Ted Nugent wants to put his woman in a stranglehold. At least he's not on drugs.
Ted Nugent is the perfect Repiglican. "August 27, 2007 That Nugent, he's a man's man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right? Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!"
Hm... Romney has his socially liberal old days, Thompson has his Hollywood actor identity, McCain had his anti-Robertson stint, Giuliani is Giuliani, and Huckabee has celebrity endorsements? So there really aren't any simon pure social conservative Republicans in the running. And they said that there would be a theocracy.
LaFollette Progressive has it right. This contradiction/paradox can be explained somewhat, but it can't be explained away. This sort of trash culture is at the heart of mass social conservatism these days (particularly with regard to its opposition to gay rights, as discussed in L.P.'s last paragraph), regardless of the fact that elite social conservatism has urbane spokesmen like Ross to argue on its behalf. Sad to say, but the type of pop culture "icons" mentioned above, plus stuff like the Left Behind books and the sermons of vulgarians like John Hagee tell you more about what the social conservative base of the GOP is thinking and acting on than pretty much anything you'll read in National Review or on websites like this one.
Mark in Houston writes: "Sad to say, but the type of pop culture "icons" mentioned above, plus stuff like the Left Behind books and the sermons of vulgarians like John Hagee tell you more about what the social conservative base of the GOP is thinking and acting on than pretty much anything you'll read in National Review or on websites like this one." Well, yeah. And I bow to no one when it comes to my contempt for the Hagees and Bushes and Robertsons... But "Walker, Texas Ranger" rules. Norris has obviously taken too many kicks to the head, but that show's addictive.
I agree with L.P. and Mark in Houston. "Values voters" are not particularly interested in any actual values except government-backed discrimination against disfavored groups. Ross is in a minority in the GOP in being put off by torture as official policy, and the idea that the US should not be bound by the rule of law when it is fighting Muslims.
Sad to say, but the type of pop culture "icons" mentioned above, plus stuff like the Left Behind books and the sermons of vulgarians like John Hagee tell you more about what the social conservative base of the GOP is thinking and acting on than pretty much anything you'll read in National Review or on websites like this one. Well, duh. Russell Kirk or what you will is not for the masses. Conservatism, of whatever sort, in a mass democracy, will always rely on an alliance-of-convenience with populism's conservative elements. Except in extraordinary circumstances, actually, the sort of elite-centered liberalism that is most potent in the US will also rely on such an alliance. Most supporters of any political program, and most politicians supporting it (to a lesser extent) will be rubes without an idea or much genuine understanding.
There's something to that, Marquis, but I don't think there's much of Kirk or Burke in today's GOP. Conservatism, which in ideal form is about preserving the best aspects of one's culture and resisting utopianism, can lapse into mere jingoism. Today's GOP is an instance of the populism swallowing the highfalutin' principles. Or am I overstating things?
Well, the populism and where-the-money is, both, surely. But the principles and the better parts of populism are still around some. If your point is that there is not a great deal to recommend either party, from the point of view of a Kirk or Burke man, you are correct. The Larison school aside, though, I still have reason to prefer one.
I still have reason to prefer one. What is that? Seriously, as someone who came of age in the 1990s, I don't think big-government liberalism is much of a problem.
The Democrats are extremely socially liberal, and have a good chance of pushing forth (especially via judicial appointments) even more disastrous social changes that I dislike. On foreign policy and economic policy, I have no real taste for either party, and the Republicans may not do much good but are generally not aggressively hostile to what's left of a moral order in the country. That's enough to vote on, for me. Neither party has much to recommend it, but the Republicans aren't in the vanguard of social/sexual dissolution.
Marquis, thanks for answering. Am I understanding properly that your highest priority in voting is that candidates will appoint and vote to confirm judges who are inclined to rule against affirmative action and gay marriage? I'm pretty sure that the Democratic Party is not particularly liberal on social issues, as compared to the electorate, but neither of us has bothered to dig up any polling data, so it's an open question in this discussion.
The Democrats are very liberal on social issues, compared to _me_. I'm surprised you left abortion (a higher priority for me than gay marriage or affirmative action) off your list -- but that's part of it.
Of course, abortion. I meant to type it but I guess there must have been a shiny object around here somewhere right then. OK, liberal compared to you. That's fair enough. Some of the GOP is liberal compared to you, too. Like the 2000-vintage Romney and Giuliani. I don't say that just to be obnoxious, but because I am wary of labeling a party as "too liberal" (I don't think the Democrats are, compared to most Americans) or "too conservative" (I'd've fit comfortably in the northeastern GOP of the 1970s, so I find today's GOP to be extreme and not to my liking).
TMoC writes: "The Democrats are extremely socially liberal, and have a good chance of pushing forth (especially via judicial appointments) even more disastrous social changes that I dislike." The translation for this has to be that TMoC thinks "homos are icky." Abortion is legal and has been for 35 years, so what "disastrous social change" is he talking about here? That can't be what he really means. He may mean that he wants to change things back - good luck with that, it's a dream of fools. Here's some "disastrous social change" for you - the US now uses torture openly and notoriously as an instrument of foreign policy, habeas corpus has been abandoned, and Dumbya Bush can wiretap anyone he wants, anytime.
I'm not sure "Dumbya Bush can wiretap anyone he wants, anytime" is an accurate portrayal of the current state of legal affairs, actually, and on that one I think the constitutional issues are more complex -- FISA has genuine problems with modern communication systems, and something needs to be done about that. How to properly safeguard but have the right intel capability is not obvious. The other two things I'm aginst (though, again, "habeas corpus has been abandoned" is an exaggeration that does the genuine complaints no service), but I'm not really sure the Democrats have that much interest in fixing them. I suspect they'd be Democratic policy (to a smaller extent than with Bush) if a Democrat had been at the helm after 9/11.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I think Reihan (and GFR) do an excellent job of explaining WHY this contradiction exists and why it makes a certain amount of sense, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a contradiction between being a "family values Christian leader" and publicly embracing the man who penned such tender odes to monogamy as "Wango Tango."
It's easy to understand why the conservative evangelical message is appealing to many working-class men from broken homes. It's also easy to understand why cultural fantasies of violent revenge and self-gratification appeal to the same demographic. What's difficult for me to understand is how so many Americans can embrace both sets of cultural choices at the same time.
Now that some of the same conservative leaders who froth about the Clintons are willing to back a twice-divorced pro-choice New Yorker who publicly flaunted his mistress, merely because he aggressively supports war and torture, I think it's fair to ask whether trash culture is actually closer to the heart and soul of the GOP than so-called family values.
One might even get the idea that the hostility toward gay marriage owes less to concern about the stability of the family, than to a broader hostility toward men who reject their redneck conceptions of masculinity, and to gay sex being less personally appealing to most people than lifestyle choices which more directly effect the institution of marriage -- no-fault divorce, for example.
Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 27, 2007 5:49 PM