|
Democrat Not Spoken Here
By Kevin
Griffis, Creative
Loafing (Atlanta)
OpEdNews.Com
Carlton Sparks is the reason
the GOP has a stranglehold on the South. With his wife, Cindi, and their
17-year-old son, Andrew, he lives in an unassuming, tan, one-story home
off a country road surrounded by mountains. Sparks, 49, makes a good
living for a resident of Blairsville, Georgia. He pulls in more than
$45,000 a year from Blue Ridge Mountain Electric Membership Corporation,
where he works as a warehouseman.
Sparks grew up a
self-described Kennedy Democrat, born to a single mom in 1954, a time, he
notes, when single mothers weren't too popular. After high school, he
joined the military for a short stint, got out and went to work at his
uncle's sawmill, before joining a Blue Ridge EMC right-of-way crew. This
was before they used chainsaws. "They's people in prison don't work
as hard as what we worked," he recalls, "but I had to have
it." He had a wife and baby girl to support.
Watching him light up Winstons
or ramble up the drive to his home in his heavy-duty pick-up, you might
pigeonhole Sparks with a glance - typical NASCAR dad. You'd be wrong. He
defies easy categorization. True, one minute he's doling out the Fox
News/talk radio clichés about "big government" and school
prayer, but in his next breath, he's telling the stories of his neighbors
and coworkers, talking vividly about the death grip squeezing rural middle
class America, the battle he watches, in person, every day. It has nothing
to do with affirmative action or the pledge of allegiance.
In Sparks lies the great
conundrum of modern Southern politics: The average white male, for whom
the system has always worked, is having an increasingly difficult time
making ends meet - as if consumer debt recently topping $2 trillion for
the first time wasn't enough of a clue. His wages have dropped when
adjusted for inflation. His health insurance premiums have skyrocketed (if
he has health insurance). He and his wife both have to work, and they pay
astronomical childcare bills. His younger kids' schools are crappy and
under-funded. His older kids' college tuition jumped (14 percent in the
last year, on average). And heaven help his children if they don't go to
college, because they're bound for a near-feudal system of working for
wealthy people in low-paying service sector jobs. Moreover, if the average
Joe is like Sparks, 30 percent of what he stashed away for retirement
evaporated in a stock market fiasco fueled by corporate greed that a bit
more government oversight could have prevented.
So where's the anger? Why
isn't he pissed that he's not getting more bang for his taxpayer buck? And
why in the world is he going to vote for a president based on a side issue
like gay marriage?
I spent a week on the road
trying to figure out why traditionally Democratic rural whites have so
solidly embraced a Republican Party whose economic program runs directly
counter to their own interests.
I started in the mountain
hamlet of Young Harris, Georgia - the hometown of U.S. Sen. Zell Miller -
and in nearby Blairsville. Then, on to Seneca, S.C., the birthplace of
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. Finally, I headed to Polk
County, one of the poorest parts of central Florida. Like much of the
rural South, each town I visited was relatively poor, overwhelmingly white
and voted for President Bush in 2000. At each stop, I looked for working
poor and middle-income people, asked them how they voted and why. The
answers were depressingly facile, filled with the perfectly parroted lingo
of the right-wing echo chamber, and yet, once I dug, often so thin,
disconnected and confused that I wondered whether a strong wind (or
populist candidate with the right message) might reorder the political
landscape.
"Part of the problem that
any political party would have ... is: Do you take the political world as
you find it or do you try to change the electorate?" says Emory
University political scientist Merle Black. The answer for progressives
and populists is the latter if they intend to solve the riddle of their
dwindling support, because these are the places where politicians fear to
tread, places populated by the most ignored voters in the country. These
are the people for whom governments, Democratic and Republican, have done
little in the last 30 years.
Conflict Of Interest
In the parking lot of Mary
Ann's, one of Miller's favorite eateries, four men huddle around a pickup
truck. A red, white and blue placard below the sign for the Young Harris
Motel proudly reads: "American Owned."
The men are examining a diesel
generator in the back of the pickup. I ask whether they plan to vote to
re-elect President Bush.
"Hell, no. I've been
starving since Bush became president," says a man, 25-ish, a
dump-truck driver in a baseball hat.
"It's about conflict of
interest," he continues. "He come from oil, so we attack a place
with oil. There's plenty of dictators in Africa doing worse things to
their people, and [Bush] don't do nothing about them." The oldest
member of foursome turns to me and leans close to my face. "You won't
find many people here voting for Bush," he twangs. "They's poor
people here. Zell Miller's from here." He points a thumb to the east,
in the direction of the senator's home.
The older man is right, sort
of. There are plenty of poor people in Towns County, which is deep in
Appalachia, right across the line from North Carolina. Nearly
three-fourths of the households earn less than $50,000 a year. (Sparks is
something of an anomaly in these parts.) More than one-quarter earn less
than $25,000.
But the guy's wrong about the
way people voted. The gang around the Silverado definitely is in the
minority in these quarters. Towns County turned out nearly 2-1 for Bush in
2000. In return, they got a free-spending president who gave them a $300
tax rebate while he lowered the taxes of the richest Americans to their
lowest levels since 1932, a government deficit billed to their children
and their children's children, and an invitation to send their kids to a
war of disputable necessity.
By all counts, it looks as if
they'll vote even more heavily for Bush the second time around. It's like
watching someone flog himself again and again.
Not surprisingly, the roots of
such self-flagellation can be traced to the historical bogeymen of
Southern backwardness. Forever, it seems, Southern demagogues have managed
to blame the "other" - mainly blacks or Yankees - for the sorry
state of poor and average whites, while they quietly curried favor for
corporations and wealthy families. Now, Zell Miller and George Bush blame
"liberals," but they're doing the same thing.
And, after a couple of
centuries of twisting the Bible to justify slavery, large swaths of
Southern religion have lost the moral grounding to stand toe-to-toe
against such demagoguery. Indeed, many churches have employed it
themselves. They've substituted Christ's message of social justice for the
self-help gospel of personal wealth - together with a big emphasis on
casting stones at others.
Heat those traditional
bogeymen in a pot with the vitriol of rightwing news outlets and a
well-funded political machine designed to advance the special interests of
corporations. Add seasoning from the well-founded skepticism about
government that started with the Vietnam War and got worse during
Watergate. Now you've got a pretty potent stew. It's not surprising that
national Democrats, even the moderate ones, measure nowadays in the
Southern, white consciousness as little more than exotic reptiles - fun to
look at but you wouldn't take them home with you. Carlton Sparks is no
different, and yet he juggles contradictions - the words he hears from
television commentators versus the life he sees and lives.
So why is Sparks a Bush man?
He makes half a case for morality - the abortion thing - before conceding
"even that has its gray areas."
There is also a careful,
understated racism that mimics talk radio's complaints about misguided
affirmative action. He lets out his beleaguered taxpayer: "They's
always someone on the side that's going to get their pockets lined. They's
always a minority group or whatever that deserves this other chance,"
Sparks says. "It's supposed to be the government of the people, for
the people and by the people. But it's gotten to the point now where
you've got four or five people that raise their voice. Everybody else is,
I reckon, busy making a living, and they listen to the four or five."
And here comes the right-wing
whipping boys, atheists, the ACLU. They're taking the Ten Commandments out
of public buildings and prayer out of the schools.
"You let your moral
values keep sliding away, keep sliding away," Sparks says. "How
long is it going to be before start taking out the pledge of
allegiance?"
And yet, Sparks is capable of
the kind of socioeconomic insight that many politicians just don't get.
You just have to ask enough questions. Take his employer, the electric
membership corporation.
"It's tough. Up here, for
the guys starting on the right of way crew now, if the company pays him
$14 an hour, his benefits is going to cost him $7 an hour," Sparks
says. "He ain't making much money, so the cost of his benefits are
going to seem greater. It comes time that something's got to give. He's
got to put food on the table. When I went to work on the EMC the average
years was like 25 years. Now, a lot of kids will start, will work for a
couple of months and then they're gone." They become fixated on that
$7 an hour net income. "They can get a job out here runnin' a dang
weedeater for $10 an hour. Well, the $10 an hour don't bring insurance,
but he's got to have the $10 an hour to put food on the table."
Sparks acknowledges he'll be
paying for their doctors' bills with higher insurance premiums, and yet
he's not interested in paying higher taxes for national health care.
Still, he understands
tradeoffs. Sparks has the pocketbook scars to prove it. To pay for college
for his daughter, Carli, he refinanced his $26,000 house, when he had just
$5,000 left on the mortgage. After refinancing, he owed $45,000. That's
the kind of life he's had to live, a life unlike the fiscal policy of his
president, one where sacrifices have to be made.
"We went and visited
family here and there a time or two," he says. "We went to
Florida a time or two, but not a whole lot of vacations, not a whole lot
of this, not a whole lot of that in order to make life work. You got to
live conservatively. You can't have everything."
Another Roadside Attraction
Driving into Seneca from the
west on U.S. 76, you're greeted by the corpulent majesty of the local
Super Wal-Mart, a monstrosity with a barber shop, McDonald's, grocery
store, shotguns and eye doctor. Everything under one roof.
Most of the Wal-Mart's
blue-smocked employees greet news that a reporter's in the building with
startled amusement or downright evasiveness, as if they're being asked
what color underwear they're wearing.
Person after person shrugs
when asked who they plan to vote for in November. Most say no one. They
don't follow it, don't have time for it.
Few even know that Edwards, a
North Carolina senator who moved as a child from Seneca to Robbins, N.C.,
is a favorite son. There's an Edwards campaign sign, faded from the sun,
in the window of the local Democratic Party headquarters and a gravestone
marking a family plot in the city's cemetery. But it doesn't seem today as
if Edwards' roots even matter.
A few women say they'll vote
how their husbands are voting, and that's for W. In grocery stores and
fast-food joints all over town, this pattern is repeated, which is not
exactly surprising to people like Merle Black. He notes that the poorest
and least educated Southern whites used to vote but now seem to have
dropped out of electoral politics almost entirely.
"They're either
alienated, or they don't see that their interests are advanced or that
they have any real motivation to take part," Black says. That might
sound like a promising voting bloc for Democrats, but Black notes that the
lack of unions in the South makes it difficult to organize working-class
Southerners into a group that would work together for their own economic
and political interests.
And who is to say which side
they'd be more predisposed to support, anyway? In the Super Wal-Mart, Adam
Canady, from nearby Walhalla, practically sticks out his chest when he
says he'll vote for Bush.
"He's the only one who's
shown himself capable of leading," Canady says.
Sentiments like Canady's and
the fact that Al Gore won just 42 percent of the vote in 2000 didn't stop
the Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning like hell in South
Carolina, a state that could supposedly prove bonafides with Southern
voters. Never mind that they don't have a chance at winning the state, or
that the primary is so unrepresentative of the state that nearly 50
percent of the voters are black. The state, meanwhile, has just a 30
percent black population.
Tossing Out Democrats
Marlene Young was the last
Democrat elected to Polk County's Board of Commissioners. That was in
1996, when she won re-election for a third term.
In 2000, voters in Central
Florida's Polk County pulled the lever for George W. Bush by a 10 percent
margin. And, after 12 years of public service, Young, a moderate, was
tossed out, while Republicans captured all five commission seats.
Yet Polk and its largest city,
Lakeland, are anything but the picture of economic well-being. Nearly 20
percent of its children live in poverty, according to the most recent
census data. The median household income is a modest $36,036. The city has
a movie-lot quality. The commercial strips, save for a Super Wal-Mart and
a Target on the edges of town, look as if they haven't seen new façades
since 1973.
Young sits in her real estate
office in a shopping center in nearby Winter Haven well past closing on a
recent Saturday. She still can't put her finger on the "why"
three years after the election that knocked her out of politics.
"I'm a Democrat who's
been turned out of office by registered Democrats, who are essentially
voting Republican," Young says. "For a long time, I've looked
and been dismayed at, you know, why are people who are not being
well-served by these Republicans in office, or by this party and the
platform - why do they continue to support it?" She has come up with
various theories, none of which quite satisfies her.
"At this point, the
Republican Party is certainly seen as the party of wealth and influence
and power and the country clubbers, all of those things that the poor
working schmucks strive to be," Young says. "It's almost a
wannabe mentality."
Then, Young attributes the
shift away from Democrats to Clinton's sex scandals and "because the
Republicans have so effectively characterized us as free-wheeling,
tax-spending, social-promoting freeloaders." And yet, Young says, it
was these very same people who are indignant about the huddled masses
getting a crack at their money, who clamored when she was in office for
more services and lower taxes.
"It just ... seemed to be
a dwindling of responsibility," she says. "People more and more
just seem to be looking at their own individual self-interests rather than
the larger interests that may be necessary for all of us to live together
ultimately."
Neil Combee is a farmer,
Republican and 13-year member of the commission. He explains the shift to
the GOP more coarsely than Young. Voters are "tired of paying people
who sit around all day on their butts."
Never mind, of course, that it
was the Democrat Clinton who signed the welfare-to-work legislation and
famously declared an end to the era of big government. There just aren't
too many people left cashing government checks each month, but in
conversations with a number of voters, the bugaboo of welfare queens was
cited as a reason they plan on voting Republican.
Sparks says he feels like the
government's doing enough to level the playing field, and people like
Lakeland's Darrell Conaster, 45, a firefighter in the Winter Haven
department, have a traditional American belief in fairness, though it's
shallow. "Government should be involved to the extent that it's fair
for everybody."
But it already does that by
enforcing anti-discrimination laws, he reasons.
Conaster, like Sparks, closely
identifies with JFK, even though he largely missed those years. When he
was in high school during the mid-1970s, "you still had the utopia of
the Kennedys, you know, everybody helping one another. That's the mindset
that I had. That's why I considered myself a Democrat. Republicans were
the well-to-do party. I never considered myself that way. I'm more down to
earth."
Conaster lives with his wife
of 14 years, and two children. While he says he gets his news from local
television and "balances it out" with reports from Pat
Robertson's 700 Club, Conaster also thinks The Ledger, the local New York
Times-owned newspaper does a fair job.
He has spent 18 years as a
firefighter with Winter Haven and works a second job, running Faith Lawn
& Tree Service. His wife works as an office manager so that his
children can attend a private Lutheran school. Public schools "force
your children to learn things that are not your family values," says
Conaster, citing evolution.
God informs Conaster's voting.
He attends the local Family Worship Center, an off-shoot of the
conservative Kenneth Hagin Ministries, which spawned self-help
televangelists such as Kenneth Copeland, who sound more like motivational
speakers you'd find at business conventions than typical preachers. In his
version of the Bible, and the one Conaster describes his minister
discussing on Sundays, God wants you to be rich. It's here that Young's
contention that Americans identify themselves, whether they're wealthy or
not, with the party of financial success makes sense, even if Conaster
can't see it working in his own life. He describes a sermon in which his
pastor, Reggie Scarborough, was advising the flock on how to make money in
real estate. "Pastor was talking about prospering and how you can buy
a house and sell it and make $10,000 and stuff like that, and I asked him
'Well, I'm a civil service worker, I don't get bonuses,'" Conaster
says.
Yet, he doesn't have a
populist's suspicion of success.
"I think the Ross Perot
thing was when I really started picking up on that, because they were
picking on him, and the man's a successful businessman, and if you check
his company out, which I did, he did a lot for the people of his
company." Conaster insists that he despises partisanship. But one
gets the sense that he is firmly attached to the GOP. He says his switch
to the Republican Party had a lot to do with Clinton.
"Bush is
family-oriented," Conaster says. "His stance on faith is bold.
He's got backbone. He's got integrity. He's not afraid to do what he feels
is right. You don't get that wishy-washy thing out of him."
At the same time, Conaster
sees no moral problem with handing tax cuts to the wealthy - he thinks he
may have received $200 or $300 with the first Bush tax cut. He shrugs at
the idea that conflicts of interest, like the one between Halliburton
subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root and its ex-CEO Dick Cheney, could end
up looting taxpayer dollars. "You can invest in those
companies," Conaster reasons. "Bush ain't just standing back
saying we've got to give more money to the poor to stimulate the economy.
That ain't what makes it work."
Future Stability?
Actually, that is what has
made America work. As author Michael Lind notes in the most recent issue
of The Atlantic Monthly, a large, healthy middle class doesn't just happen
in a capitalist system. "The truth is that each of America's
successive middle classes has been artificially created by
government-sponsored social engineering," he writes. Since 1800,
you've had land distribution laws that promoted small farmers - America's
first middle class - high tariffs, the end of child labor and strict
immigration limits benefiting turn-of-the-century industrial workers and
Social Security, Medicare and the GI Bill, among other initiatives, that
solidified the middle class during the last half century.
So what programs guarantee the
future stability of the middle class? Few politicians have any answers,
and tax cuts don't count.
Indeed, a powerful case can be
made that racism and anti-government sentiment are just by-products of the
squeeze on the middle and lower classes - eggs to the much larger chicken
of enormous and increasing income inequality. Reaganomics has led to
numbers like these: In 1979, the top 5 percent of earners made 11 times
more than those in the bottom 20 percent. Now, the elite earn 19 times
more than the lowest 20 percent. Meanwhile, the economy during that period
grew just three times and typical family incomes only doubled.
And CEOs have really been
rolling in the dough since the Reagan years. In the 1970s, they made 25
times what the average worker made annually. That number rose to almost
100 times by 1988. By 2000, CEOs made 500 times, on average, what the
typical worker made, according to numbers compiled by economist and
professor Jeff Madrick. These are inequalities that we haven't seen since
the 1920s. The only difference is that during the 1920s, the economy grew
rapidly. That isn't the case now, and it can be argued that such
inequality leads to the search for scapegoats. "Roughly, since 1973,
we've been growing about 1 percent a year slower than we did since 1870,
and that's very significant when you accumulate it over time," says
Madrick.
You might expect a little
outrage from the average worker when confronted with numbers like these,
especially when he sees little that government is doing in his own life,
but it's distressingly rare. Instead, the opposite appears to be happening
- a sort of political paralysis that's reflected in the blank stares of
Seneca's Wal-Mart employees.
Journalist George Packer, in
his introduction to "The Fight Is for Democracy: Winning the War of
Ideas in America and the World," captures the downward spiral of
American politics: "The relationship between democracy and economic
inequality ... creates a kind of self-perpetuating cycle: The people hold
government in low esteem; public power shrinks against the awesome might
of corporations and rich individuals; money and its influence claims a
greater and greater share of political power; and the public, priced out
of the democratic game, grows ever more cynical about politics and puts
more of its energy into private ends. Far from creating a surge of reform,
the erosion of the middle class has only deepened the
disenchantment."
It didn't have to be that way,
especially for white males. In the early 1970s, wages stopped going up for
males, and in particular for lower-income or middle-income, less-educated
white males. Nearly 60 percent experienced either a decline or almost no
gain in wages, Madrick writes. They rose for minorities and women, but
only because they'd been so much lower to begin with.
With a little more
imagination, the government response might have been to step in and
re-train the workers who were falling behind. It would have meant more
spending, but not a huge increase, Madrick says, and it might have helped
avoid the pervasive anti-government feelings I heard on my trip through
the South.
Add solutions to the current
wage-growth killers - increasing childcare and healthcare costs - to
worker training, and maybe the political landscape is different in the
South. Maybe more folks have a vested interest.
Instead, as Sparks of
Blairsville suggests, those low-skill workers just kept falling behind
until companies started shipping their jobs out of America.
"You wouldn't believe the
jobs we've lost in this area, and now this wasn't a great place to come to
work to start with," Sparks says. "But these companies that keep
farming it out overseas ... where's your kids going to work one of these
days?"
If progressive politicians
want to break the GOP death grip among rural whites, Sparks' question is
one they need to answer. They should begin by charting a new course for
expanding the middle class - the backbone of American promise and
political clout - in the new century. Maybe then the words Democrats speak
will connect with the lives most people in this country lead.
Kevin
Griffis is a staff writer for Creative Loafing-Atlanta.
"Reprinted with the
permission of AlterNet.org." |