Newt Gingrich's upset victory in South Carolina appears to have been made possible by his success in tapping into a deep, bitter, implacable sense of grievance and victimhood that afflicts a large segment of the Republican electorate in that state. It found expression in their delight when Gingrich called Obama a "food stamp president." And of course its steadiest manifestation is their hysterical hatred of and contempt for President Obama. The principal appeal of Gingrich to this electorate seems to be rooted in their erotic fantasy that Gingrich would, in a debate with Obama, whip the President and put him in his place...despised for their lack of education, mocked for their religion, deprived of the last-ditch self-defense that AT LEAST I AM NOT BLACK, large numbers of White Americans have a deep, ineradicable need to see the iconic Black man put in his place by a White hero.Oddly, no one mentioned this in class. Perhaps you were just embarrassed to admit that Gingrich has a place in your "erotic fantasies?"
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Why Academics think Gingrich is winning
This is obviously just from one person--a professor at UMass--but it would be fair to say that I hear similar sentiments from academics I interact with all the time. Take it with the proverbial grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that a very crucial point has been made in lieu of the critical disposition that conservative Americans have towards Obama, and their deep rooted disapproval of his job performance. But on that same note, I would like to draw a critical line showing that while I agree with this article, I find myself almost offended by the suggestion that there is anything racially involved in the context of the debates.
ReplyDeleteI feel that for far too long, the conservative movement has been plagued/tagged with a racial element that follows it where ever it goes. I said that I agree with the general thesis of the paper; there more than likely is an “erotic” obsession with Gingrich in a debate against President Obama. But that position is anything but a racial one for me, or for the ideological movement in general. To me, this is about style, and applicability to the common man. Any conservative can admit that President Obama knows his way around a stage. He is a formidable opponent to any candidate the Republican Party nominates. The true determination for his ability to debate the president in a “fantasy” world lies in his ability to debate on the stage during the primary season. Since his rise, then fall, in the polls before the Iowa Caucuses, and sudden surge in the polls following the South Carolina debate and his surge on to the great state of Florida following his win in the Palmetto State, the conservative base of the Republican Party is seeing one last opportunity to put forth an appropriate candidate that not only follows their ideals true to his record, but also is the most passionate and national candidate on the stage.
Aside from their credentials, and the deep-rooted disposition towards the president, conservatives have been found guilty of the same things that liberals have: societal division. Assigning the “racist” label to the conservative movement is a naïve, and illogical move, one only true ideologues attempt to use when they feel a debate isn’t going their way. But political epithets aren’t only secured to the conservative movement. They can be found and used against the liberal as well.
“There is no doubt that the contemporary Republican electorate contains some out-and-out bigots, just as the Democratic electorate contains people who hate others on the basis of class. These very real prejudices occasionally erupt into public expression, whether in remarks about Jews over the years by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or in shocking signs at tea party rallies.” – Gerard Alexander, Washington Post
As Gerard discusses, even the great civil liberties experts Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren’t immune from radical comments, that when taken out of context could offend the general public. Therefore what I really think lies in the discussion held by the professor of UMass, is a deeply rooted disposition of the conservative movement. At no point has any conservative blatantly come out as a racist bigot seeking to watch the south rise again or to create for more racial disparity. But instead they have come forward with candidates of all races in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the old conservative movement labeled as “old white men.”
In conclusion, yes there is a backing of Gingrich amongst the conservative elite to watch him work magic on the stage as he has done in almost every debate. But at no point, has there been any suggestion that the support lies in a rooted hatred for race, and in an attempt to see a white hero beat a black villain. Instead, the conservative movement has been victims of the very same political banter that liberals are so keen on dishing as they are capable of receiving.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/10/AR2010091002679.html?sid=ST2010091201877
I have been troubled since the beginning of the tea-party movement and I am disappointed with the current state of the Republican Party. Leaders lead, they have ideologies, they can defend what they believe in and what they don't. I don't see this from the Tea-party or Republican voters. They are driven by a hatred of President Obama. Why do they hate him? Do they disagree with his policies? Do they believe he is harming the country? Do they not like him because of the color of his skin?
ReplyDeleteI can not accurately state what the drive behind this passionate hatred of our President is, but it is driving the party. Our course voters disagree with his policies. The Affordable Health Care Act and repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell are two examples of policies that GOP supporters dislike. Just as President Obama rallied supporters to the call of "change" in 2008, the republican candidates want change. But it is a change based in hatred and negativity. "get ride of President Obama!". Rick Santorum has accurately cast this election in terms of removing Obama. This is a great way to rally support and galvanize voters. Humans are emotional people and as much as we tell ourselves that we act rationally we to often act based on emotions. So the GOP is playing like Vince Lombardi, "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing".
What troubles me is that this is a shallow way of voting and has the attitude of a middle schooler. I ask, what does the Republican party want? What is it's ideology? What policies do they want to see put into place? What is their vision for the country? But my stipulation is these questions must be answered with out mentioning President Obama, without saying what they don't want, and without negativity. If those questions can be answered, I would be happy.
Jake I agree with you that Gingrich is not a racist and does not want to see the south rise again. But racism has not been eradicated and it still is in our nation. Some people do hate President Obama based on the color of his skin, not many people but still enough. This is not a matter of race. The question is why are voter so dogmatically against President Obama and can the Republican Party define itself by anything more than being against President Obama?
If Newt can say what he would do as President without mentioning President Obama it would be great.
You say "without saying what they don't want, and without negativity."
ReplyDelete1) Why aren't people allowed to criticize what the government has done? If administration A creates a new rule or a new bureaucracy or new spending program, why shouldn't people be allowed to say "that was a mistake, I don't want it."
2) How is this any different than the hate aimed at George Bush during his presidency from opponents? Obama criticized Bush relentlessly (remember the time when when Obama pronounced that asking to raise the debt ceiling is a "failure of leadership?" :)
3) Your post makes it sound like your vision of government is one that ratchets eternally upwards, with new this and new that and ever expanding activity and control, with never a mistake along the way. Is that an accurate guide to what you think?
PS: When some local Tea Party leaders come visit us, make sure to ask!
I have no problem with people criticizing government. Speaking out against the government is an American past time. The Revolutionary War was a criticism of government. Policies should be debated in the public arena. I complain about government everyday. I applaud criticism of government. The current state of affairs and rhetoric used by Newt is more similar to that used by John Kerry in 2004. The 2004 election was a judgment of George W. Bush and the Iraq War. When ever a President is running for reelection the election is about his policies not his opponent. I felt that John Kerry was a weak nominee but he gained so much momentum from Iowa voters jumped on his bandwagon. Not because they liked John Kerry but because they had such disdain for George W Bush. People did not vote for John Kerry, instead they voted against George W Bush. After four years voters judge what the effectiveness of President has been. Are people happy with what they got? Do they want a change? Going after the current leader and opponent is an incredibly campaign tactic and works in sports, politics, business, and most aspects of life. Galvanizing voters to use emotion instead of reason is a winning strategy. Newt is a great fighter, he throws heavy punches and can take a hit. I personally wish President Obama campaigned more like Newt. I have wanted Obama to get in people's face and defend himself. He is the President and he needs to show his strength instead of being pushed around. When I worked on the Obama campaign this summer the most common comment that I got was that Obama needs to be tougher.
ReplyDeleteI may have an idealistic vision of government. I personally have high expectations for voters. Criticism of government is good but when is continues for a long period it gets old. The Tea Part movement is three years old but they continue to be focused on what Obama is doing wrong. As a voter I want to vote for a person that has a vision for the country. People that continue to dwell on the negative remind me of upset teenagers. It is a shallow view to not have any ideas of your own, just ideas against something. Use negativity to rally support but then tell the supporters what your vision is. I really want have conversations with voters but when they don't support any policy besides repealing policies it is hard to converse. I may be wrong. I want to vote for a person that defines them self by what they want and instead of what don't. That is my vision.