Spoiled Americans For Huckabee

Patrick Ruffini:

Huckabee won women 40-26% (and men just 29-26%). He won voters under $30,000 by about 2 to 1. Cross those two, take away the Republican filter, and you’re talking about a general election constituency that is at least 2-to-1 Democratic. These are not people that conventional primary campaigns are designed to reach. These are the Republican voters the furthest away from National Review, other elite conservative media, and websites like this one. It’s easy to see just how the analysts missed the boat on this one.

But not to worry, Quinn Hillyer has this constituency's number:

[The Iowa result] also shows that the American people have no idea how good their lives are. The strong response to economic grievance-mongering shows that people who are incredibly wealthy by every historical standard are somehow convinced they are barely making ends meet -- barely making ends meet while their families have two cars, three TVs, four cell phones, and untold numbers of other gadgets in homes they themselves own. There is a word for this: spoiled. Huckabee and Obama are smart enough to appeal to the spoiled Americans who have no idea what real hardship is.

I believe I'll let Mr. Hillyer's remarks stand without comment.

Comments

I'll comment. He's a prick.

And when has Obama done any economic grievance-mongering?

Posted by southpaw | January 4, 2008 11:15 AM

Ross, I'm confused.

How can you mock a man for calling the lower classes “spoiled” because they have a couple cars and several televisions — how can you laugh at his argument that this means their “grievance-mongering” politics are illegitimate — when you yourself are just another stupid white boy who bought the cadillac-driving flatscreen TV-watching welfare queen hype?

It’s almost as if you automatically assume the problems of black people are fake, purely invented to scam white people out of their hard-earned cash, while the problems of white people are legitimate. It’s almost like you think that.

Posted by Mike Meginnis | January 4, 2008 11:21 AM

Some of the have hit on the obviousness of the Giuliani crater & corresponding Huckabee surge.

It’s not economics its values. (Once again) Giuliani had the national polls on name recognition alone. The perceived eventuality of a Giuliani Pro-choice, Thrice divorced, Neutralizer on the culture wars candidacy drove family friendly voters into the arms of the strongest values candidate.

Romney had no street cred given his previous positions.

It was the backbone of America (populism)saying NO to Giuliani (East Cost Elites) as much as anything else.

Analysis – Simple, Poignant, Obvious.

Posted by Fitz | January 4, 2008 11:26 AM

Mike Meginnis writes: "How can you mock a man for calling the lower classes “spoiled” because they have a couple cars and several televisions — how can you laugh at his argument that this means their “grievance-mongering” politics are illegitimate — when you yourself are just another stupid white boy who bought the cadillac-driving flatscreen TV-watching welfare queen hype?"

I was about to make the same point but Mike made it beautifully. Class warfare is perfectly okay when Ross or Saint Reagan engage in beating up the poor, but when someone does it who isn't sanctified they get slammed. Sure, Hillyer's a dick here, but he's not the only con who fits that description right to a T(V).

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 11:57 AM

That's not quite fair to Giuliani, Fitz. He's actually only twice-divorced. Sure, he earns bonus family values points for publicly carrying on with a mistress while still married to wife #2, but technically the divorce only counts once.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 4, 2008 11:59 AM

Now, that's the tradition that conservatives need to revive-- contempt for the lower classes. Tee hee. I'm getting warm all over just thinking about it.

Posted by MattF | January 4, 2008 12:01 PM

Fitz writes: "It’s not economics its values. (Once again) Giuliani had the national polls on name recognition alone. The perceived eventuality of a Giuliani Pro-choice, Thrice divorced, Neutralizer on the culture wars candidacy drove family friendly voters into the arms of the strongest values candidate.

Romney had no street cred given his previous positions.

It was the backbone of America (populism)saying NO to Giuliani (East Cost Elites) as much as anything else.

Analysis – Simple, Poignant, Obvious."

If it wasn't simple and obvious, Fitz couldn't come up with it. It's also wrong, and Fitz is always wrong.

Giuliani didn't campaign in Iowa, chuckles. He never asked Iowans to vote for him. Romney did, and he played the values game to the hilt, but with NO TRACE of economic populism. Huckabee did both - it's his whole game, apart from being a Jesoid wackaloon.

What it really points out is that the GOP is a fractured mess without a single strong candidate. This year is going to be a lot of fun, and the next 3 Supreme Court justices are going to make you throw up in your mouth. I hope clips of those episodes show up on Youtube.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 12:04 PM

LFP to Fitz: "That's not quite fair to Giuliani, Fitz. He's actually only twice-divorced. Sure, he earns bonus family values points for publicly carrying on with a mistress while still married to wife #2, but technically the divorce only counts once."

Fitz probably mixed Rudy up with his hero Rush Limbaugh, the thrice-divorced, ex-con, draft-dodging drug addict, glutton and sex vacationer who is the moral and intellectual leader of the conservative movement.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 12:07 PM

Pot-shot: Hillyer thinks Thompson is a man of substance.

Posted by Justin | January 4, 2008 1:17 PM

Actually, I will stand by my comments. They do not show contempt for low income Americans. They show criticism of upper-middle-income and middle-income Americans who think they are barely scraping by when, by all historical standards, they are living in the lap of luxury. Their lifestyles are significantly more comfortable -- bigger houses, more possessions, greater net worth, etc. -- than those of something like 90 percent of the world's people today, and more comfortable than something like 99-plus percent of the world's people just 100 years ago. There is NOTHING wrong with that. It's a good thing. That's what free-market economies create is richer middle classes AND, for that matter, lower economic strata that are wealthier than the same strata were just decades before, which are wealthier (or less impoverished) than they were just decades before that, and so on. It is a very good thing that a number of people in the BOTTOM quintile of American income these days have central air and heat, and a car, and a job, AND a basic safety net from government for temporary assistance when they fall. I bow to almost nobody in my Kempian concern for the poor among us (and if you check my record, you will find plenty of evidence thereof). But what I object to is when middle-income folks whose children spend all day every Saturday at the mall think they are somehow just struggling to survive. Huckabee is appealing to that grievance-mongering sentiment with vague platitudes right out of John Edwards' playbook. Meanwhile, he fibs repeatedly about his own record on numerous counts, and hides his history of unethical behavior. On all counts, he merits criticism. And so do the "spoiled" Americans who think their lives of abundance are actually lives of sheer toil, and look to Hucksters to cure them of their non-existent economic hardships. - Quin Hillyer

Posted by Quin Hillyer | January 4, 2008 1:40 PM

Quin Hillyer writes: "I bow to almost nobody in my Kempian concern for the poor among us"

Right. You're too busy bowing to "leading conservative" Rush Limbaugh.

Do you have a flat head to hold his beer?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 1:48 PM

No bowing to Rush. To call him a "leading conservative" is just a statement of fact. He is a huge opinion leader for conservatives. Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes I don't.
Meanwhile, do check my record. You'll see a very serious, longtime concern with ameliorating poverty both through public policy and through private action. You'll also find a history of fighting demagogues (Huck: I will have us energy-independent, with no oil from the Saudis, in less than ten years" -- yeah, RIGHT), racists, and Nazis. (Hint: I'm from Louisiana, where David Duke almost got elected governor. Check out who was very publicly among the leading anti-Dukesters in the whole state. And then imagine the physically threatening phone calls that sometimes ensued from Duke's supporters.)

Posted by Quin Hillyer | January 4, 2008 2:11 PM

Quin, I don't know you from Adam, nor do I really care to research your CV, so I'll take it on face value that you feel admirable "Kempian concern" for the poor.

But... the superfantastic awesomeness of our consumer bounty aside, there seems to be a growing number of people on all sides of the political spectrum who are unhappy with the direction our country is headed in. It's been noted thousands of times by thousands of people that fabulous high-tech gadgets keep getting cheaper and cheaper, but the cost of basic needs like energy, health care, housing, and the education necessary to compete for jobs keeps increasing. Meanwhile, wages for most people outside of the private jet set are relatively stagnant.

Calling these people a bunch of selfish ingrates doesn't really strike me as a message that's going to resonate. What, exactly, do you want them to do? Stop buying those plasma TVs and iPods that drive our economic growth? Shut up, watch Dancing With the Stars in High-Def, and send their kids to some crappy school so they can work for your Ivy League-educated kid someday and then get laid off when their jobs is outsourced to Malaysia to boost your grandkids' share value?

Maybe their concerns are irrational. But selfish? Are Republicans now telling us that there's something wrong with rational self-interest?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 4, 2008 2:35 PM

when their jobs is outsourced to Malaysia

Wow, that was a horrendous typo. I blame my public school education.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 4, 2008 2:37 PM

LaFollette, you make good points. (See, what we are having is a rational and constructive political discussion.) The facts, though, are that the same living standards that in the mid-1980s were seen as fabulous (I include all of the "basic needs" you discuss) are now seen by many as representing hardship. Take out the tech bubble from about 1997 to 1999, and wages have NOT been stagnant at all. The economy up until about five months ago was the best economy in the history of mankind. (Of course, it was partly based on a housing bubble that is now coming home to roost. I will acknowledge that. But the housing bubble burst has actually affected only a tiny percentage of Americans.) I also have been way out front in predicting stagflation by this summer, because of mistakes by the Treasury and even more by the Fed.
Now, as to my message resonating: I do not suggest that a politician try to make my message resonate. I am not trying to win votes. I am a journalist using a blog to make an accurate point, a point true whether or not it is popular. The point, and the fact, is that many people for the past several years were complaining about an economy that, by all historical standards, was enriching them greatly.
Now, what do I want them to do? Of course I do not want them to stop buying their gadgets. I want them to prosper. I want everyone to prosper. And I wish that corporate execs would realize the difference between prospering and getting filthy rich for bad performance, and show some concern for their workers and shareholders.
But what I do want middle-class Americans to do is to feel gratitude for their fortunate position in life rather than complaining and acting as if they are terribly burdened. And to stop falling for demagogues like Huck who feed their feelings of grievance.
Oh... one more thing: I think I am allergic to Ivy. If I have kids, you won't find them there.

Posted by Quin HIllyer | January 4, 2008 2:55 PM

While I'm sure Quin Hillyer feels he has done right by the poor, this quote from his review of Fred Barnes's absurd bio of Dumbya seems to best represent his own worldview:

"The elite media may treat the Bush worldview as something from outer space, but Barnes shows just how deep and admirable are its intellectual, cultural, and historical roots — and how Bush has branched out from those roots in new, apparently rebellious directions, but in a way that nourishes those roots instead of abandoning them.

Barnes may be premature in declaring that “thanks to Bush, a Republican era is now at hand.” But he gives a persuasive explanation of why Bush is succeeding in his struggle, not just against monolithic thought in the nation’s capital, but against tyrants around the globe."

Is that what you mean by "fighting demagogues"?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 2:58 PM

MoeLarryetc, you got me there... in a sense. I actually continue to believe that the ROOTS of the worldview are absolutely on target. I have long been a fierce critic, though, of many parts of Bush's application of that worldview. I do admit to being wrong that Bush would continue to succeed against tyrants despite the incompetent applications of the worldview.
Of course, you will disagree with my assessment of the worldview itself. To flesh out what I am talking about would require a whole essay. I will try to write it soon in a formal column.
Meanwhile, you are right that I was too ebullient in that book review. I plead guilty. Best wishes, Quin

Posted by Quin Hillyer | January 4, 2008 3:07 PM

Quin Hillyer again: "And I wish that corporate execs would realize the difference between prospering and getting filthy rich for bad performance, and show some concern for their workers and shareholders."

Your wish is very nice, but as Sean Connery asked in "The Untouchables," "What are you prepared to do about it?"

Since we both know the answer is precisely nothing, your wishes are nothing but balloon juice. The GOP base seems to have figured that out.

"The economy up until about five months ago was the best economy in the history of mankind."

It's a top-heavy economy which in which a growing percentage of the population sees their lot getting worse, not better. In the 1970s it was possible for a family with 5 kids to own a home on a single working class salary and for most of those kids to finish college - including 2 exclusive private universities - thanks in part to financial aid. I submit that this is no longer feasible. It's my own family I'm talking about, of course, but I knew many others in the same general boat.

You and yours can ignore this plain reality. Please do. It will be that ignorance which cuts the head off of the conservative movement and jams garlic down the esophagus to keep it from reviving.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 3:09 PM

Quin Hillyer again: "I do admit to being wrong that Bush would continue to succeed against tyrants despite the incompetent applications of the worldview."

The problem is that Bush's "successes against tyrants" were all purely illusory. One would have to be mildly insane to regard the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan as "successes" at this point, or to have much hope that either will end well. I suggest that if your worldview depends upon you lying to yourself that you need to reexamine it - and if it relies on you fooling yourself like you did in the Barnes review, you may not be up to the task.

And speaking of tyrants, why would your own allergy to Ivy lead you to keep your kids from getting some?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 3:16 PM

LaFollette, inequality obviously is a massively complicated topic. but - income gains are masked in part by rising health care costs picked up by employers.

I agree there seem to be systemic problems that need to be addressed, to make it easier for working Americans to reach their goals. the tough part is devising such solutions without curbing the incentives that led to innovation and growth.

Moe, Afghanistan is a success in that AQ is not now sitting there at its leisure deciding what to do next. and by all appearances the people there appear better off than under the Taliban, unless you enjoyed soccer stadium executions (I suspect you might, provided it's Republicans in the ring). I'd agree it's not Finland, but it never has been and I doubt most Americans were aiming for that in 2001.

Posted by chris | January 4, 2008 3:38 PM

Quin, I'm afraid that I don't accept most of your "facts", nor do I think your point is "accurate" in any sense other than it accurately expresses your opinion toward people who are being asked to make sacrifices to drive economic growth that overwhelmingly benefits a few well-connected people.

A family that had one middle class income in the mid-1980s could probably afford to buy a stand-alone house and decent health insurance coverage for their kids, and could send them to State U without much trouble. Now, in the "best economy in the history of mankind," that simply isn't true. We have more affluence than ever, but wealth is harder to come by and increasingly unequal in its distribution. Perhaps Americans ought to be more grateful for what they do have, but you could stand to learn that the best economy in the history of mankind looks very different from the standpoint of a family with more debts than assets.

Ross' comments are not link-friendly, but this graph speaks volumes about why Huckabee's message found an audience:
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012733.php

Chris, I agree that we need to protect the incentives for growth while addressing these problems. It's just far past the time to stop using those incentives as an excuse for doing nothing to address the problems.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 4, 2008 3:54 PM

chris tells me: "Afghanistan is a success in that AQ is not now sitting there at its leisure deciding what to do next. and by all appearances the people there appear better off than under the Taliban, unless you enjoyed soccer stadium executions (I suspect you might, provided it's Republicans in the ring)."

No, unlike Republicans, I'm opposed to the death penalty. I don't like torture, either, which is something you probably can't say.

As for "AQ," they're sitting there at their leisure, controlling large sections of Afghanistan, cashing in on the poppy crop, and waiting patiently for our inevitable departure. "OBL" is living comfortably in Pakistan - our ally! - and he thanks you for your, uh, "success."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 3:57 PM

This is fun! We're actually having a conversation without really nasty insults. Just like Huck and Obama so correctly are calling for. Too bad Huck's stance is all a pose....
Anyway, I was asked what I am prepared to do about the big sweetheart deals for corporate execs that are unearned. Actually, I have been pondering that for a while now. One thing (don't laugh) is social ostracism publicly supported b the "bully pulpit." But another would be to NOT let accumulated benefits/stock options etc payable as severance, above a certain amount (perhaps $1 million), be considered as a business expense by the corporation. In other words, the corporation would have to pay taxes as if that money were still in its coffers. Now THAT would have some impact, n'est-ce pas?
Again, this is just an idea I am kicking around, not a firm proposal yet. But does that reassure you that I am not some sort of big-money economic royalist?
As for LaFollette's comments that the typical family has more debts than assets.... actually, I think it's just the opposite. More families have a positive net worth now than ever before. (Or so I seem to remember reading.) Now it is true that CREDIT CARD debts are higher (in large part because of extravagant spending on gadgets), but overall net worth is up, not down... and not just at the top, but widely.
Now, as for Ivy... because I have unfortunate biases, too, one of which is a bias against the trappings of old East Coast establishmentarians (like the Bushes), and the Ivies are among those trappings. I prefer Ivy-equivalent schools, with at least as fine an education but none of the stuffiness. That's why I went to Georgetown.
Anyway, I'll stop for now. But I hope you all are getting the sense that I am not such an ogre, and that I welcome and encourage respectful debate -- even while admitting that, as all of this has been written off the top of my head on the fly, it's not exactly a tremendously well sourced or referenced argument. Those will have to wait for formal columns of mine. Meanwhile, to Ross Douthat, I hope you have appreciated these exchanges, and I thank you for putting up with me "borrowing" your site in the name of reasoned discussion.
Best wishes to you all,
Quin.

Posted by Quin Hillyer | January 4, 2008 4:25 PM

LaFollete, we're on the same page. I don't buy the notion that changing anything even slightly from what Wall St prefers will turn us into the Dust Bowl.

No, Moe, I don't like torture. sorry to disappoint you. not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot or a sadist.

and I certainly hope we will depart Afghanistan soon. I do not think people favored endless involvement there, just a raid to dislodge AQ followed hopefully by giving Afghans a decent shot at something better. our efforts aren't perfect, but we seem to achieved something on both fronts. Read "the looming tower", it's got the details.

Posted by chris | January 4, 2008 4:36 PM

Quin Hillyer replies: "Anyway, I was asked what I am prepared to do about the big sweetheart deals for corporate execs that are unearned. Actually, I have been pondering that for a while now. One thing (don't laugh) is social ostracism publicly supported b the "bully pulpit." But another would be to NOT let accumulated benefits/stock options etc payable as severance, above a certain amount (perhaps $1 million), be considered as a business expense by the corporation. In other words, the corporation would have to pay taxes as if that money were still in its coffers. Now THAT would have some impact, n'est-ce pas?
Again, this is just an idea I am kicking around, not a firm proposal yet. But does that reassure you that I am not some sort of big-money economic royalist?"

Not really, no, since we're talking about corporations which generally don't pay taxes in the first place - most American corporations don't, on the order of 75%, as I recall. If they have a paper loss your proposal would have no effect at all. Now if we got into some sort of luxury tax proposal a la baseball and basketball, maybe we'd have something - but the GOP would slit its collective throat before allowing that.

"As for LaFollette's comments that the typical family has more debts than assets.... actually, I think it's just the opposite. More families have a positive net worth now than ever before. (Or so I seem to remember reading.) Now it is true that CREDIT CARD debts are higher (in large part because of extravagant spending on gadgets), but overall net worth is up, not down... and not just at the top, but widely."

The housing bubble is the core issue here - and if the equity of your house is what's giving you your net worth, and you only have 20-30% equity in your house, your positive net worth may well evaporate in the next year. Even if it doesn't, it's not something you can really tap into anymore.

You might also want to look into the usurious practices of credit card companies sometime, and consider what people are really using those cards for. Groceries and tuition and staples are far more likely than "gadgets" as monthly purchases. Jeez, "gadgets." Who uses that word nowadays?

"Now, as for Ivy... because I have unfortunate biases, too, one of which is a bias against the trappings of old East Coast establishmentarians (like the Bushes), and the Ivies are among those trappings. I prefer Ivy-equivalent schools, with at least as fine an education but none of the stuffiness. That's why I went to Georgetown."

The question wasn't about you, it was about your kids and your 'tyrannical' comment about where you would allow them to go to school.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 4:50 PM

chris replies: "No, Moe, I don't like torture. sorry to disappoint you. not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot or a sadist."

Stop whining. You had that slap coming after the crap about how I would enjoy the stadium executions of Republicans.

"and I certainly hope we will depart Afghanistan soon. I do not think people favored endless involvement there, just a raid to dislodge AQ followed hopefully by giving Afghans a decent shot at something better. our efforts aren't perfect, but we seem to achieved something on both fronts."

Operative word being "seem." The question was whether it was a success or not, and when you have to use words like "hope" and "hopefully" and "decent shot" you're admitting it hasn't been. I also disagree with you about what people wanted out of the raid - they wanted AQ disabled and Osama's head on a platter, and neither happened. If that's a success, Medals of Freedom to everyone!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 4:57 PM

Moe, I admit that I have limited knowledge of the reality of life in a country on the other side of the world from America. I assume you are similarly distant, and are similarly relying on at best second hand reports. regardless, from those reports it seems better than it was. it would be hard to be worse.

agreed re wanting OBL dead and AQ disabled - didn't mean to suggest less.

also, re your reply to Hillyer - corps pay taxes if profitable, as do their shareholders.

Posted by chris | January 4, 2008 5:39 PM

chris replies: "I admit that I have limited knowledge of the reality of life in a country on the other side of the world from America. I assume you are similarly distant, and are similarly relying on at best second hand reports. regardless, from those reports it seems better than it was. it would be hard to be worse."

The question is whether we've been able to do anything to make it better on a lasting basis - that would be a success. What we have now is a steadily-worsening situation which our own military is asking for additional help with. If we leave it's a mess, and it's a mess now. Lose-lose situations aren't my idea of a success.

"re your reply to Hillyer - corps pay taxes if profitable, as do their shareholders."

Yes, I know. I've reviewed plenty of corporate returns in my life. In my reply I said 75% or so of corporations don't pay taxes for various reasons.

I also know that many corporations pay large bonuses to execs and then promptly - or concurrently - go into the toilet. Just review the latest rash of axings over the subprime mortgage crisis. These longstanding, viable companies are posting huge losses while paying out huge bonuses. Hillyer's suggestion wouldn't even begin to address the problem I posed to him in most cases. It's not that his idea is totally off-base, but it would be easy for most companies to avoid. You'd have to drastically overhaul other areas of the tax code for it to have any effect at all.

Megacorps are very good at adjusting to minor inconveniences like laws.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 11:01 PM

I don't see why someone's endorsement of economic populism provides very strong evidence that he believes HIS OWN life is going poorly. He may simply believe that populist economic policies are the most fair, the most just, and may support them on those grounds, even if they don't in any obvious way advance his own self-interest. Why no consideration of this competing hypothesis?

Posted by ACS | January 5, 2008 2:49 PM