The Broadband Teat

(with a tip of the hat to Harlan Ellison)

AustinCynic

AustinCynic
Location
Austin, Texas, USA
Birthday
January 13
Bio
I'm a husband and proud papa. I have a B.A. in history from Middlebury College and an M.A. in Screenwriting from The University of Texas. And now I work at a kennel--which I enjoy a great deal. I'm also writing a lot of short fiction these days, which I enjoy even more. Catch my story "Trials" in the anthology Ring of Fire 2, currently available from Baen Books.

Editor’s Pick
OCTOBER 4, 2008 2:25PM

Sarah Palin and the Conservative Cult of the Common Man

Rate: 9 Flag

I must begin with a word about my "blogfather," the blogger who has influenced me more than any other. It's not Markos Moulitsas, or Jeff Tiedrich, founder of The Smirking Chimp, which I used to frequent back in the day; it's not Joe Conason, Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Uyger or Robert Schlesinger, all of whose observations I find intelligent and insightful. It is Harlan Ellison. The same Harlan Ellison who does not have his own website-- though the excellent but unofficial site Ellison Weberland (www.harlanellison.com) comes pretty close--the same Harlan Ellison who, for all I know, still writes on a manual typewriter. 

For about three and a half years, from late 1968 to early 1972, Ellison wrote a column for the long-defunct Los Angeles Free Press entitled "The Glass Teat" and it was primarily about television. Indeed, a great deal of fun reading the book are reviews of now-classic shows both outstanding (Ellison writes a review of the pilot for All In the Family, at that time titled Those Were the Days), and campy (his review of The Partridge Family in its entirety was "Mother of God"). I first read the two-volume collection of these columns at 13, and what resonated with me as a teen in Reagan's America were Ellison's prophetic political observations in the age of Nixon and Agnew, and his warnings both about Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, as well as to not underestimate the power of the "Silent Majority." I don't know if Harlan had read Kevin Phillips' The Emerging Republican Majority, written just before "The Glass Teat" started its run, but Ellison and Phillips are to me two sides of the same coin, with Phillips laying out the road map for precisely that which Ellison feared would come to pass: that the working-class whites who backed Nixon and Wallace in 1968 would work to roll back the New Deal and the progressive legislation that followed. Especially the Civil Rights Act and the measures growing out of it, including The Great Society. Ellison was a blogger before there were blogs.

Perhaps none of the "The Glass Teat" columns has stayed with me so strongly as two from October 1969 on "The Common Man," Harlan's reaction to a two-hour episode of The David Susskind Show which featured a panel of working-class white men deemed to be representative of Nixon's Silent Majority. All of them had families, all of them were the sole breadwinners of their families, making between about $45,000 and $56,000 a year in today's dollars ($8,000 to $10,000 in 1969) working one or two jobs. In watching Sarah Palin on the campaign trail these last five weeks, and especially after the debate Thursday, I came to the stark realization that not only have the GOP's arguments to these voters has changed little in 40 years, in nominating Sarah Palin they have put a member of "The Silent Majority" on the ticket. Sarah Palin is the goddess of the conservative Cult of the Common Man.

For example, guess who might have said the following: "I have absolute faith in the Pentagon. I believe they are the only ones qualified to set their budget." If you guessed Sarah Palin, or even John McCain, I couldn't blame you; in fact it was Frank Mrak, one of the Susskind panelists. But it easily could have come out of the mouths of either person on the GOP ticket. 

"It's the Liberal mafia that keeps this war from being won." Again, this was a Susskind panelist by the name of Paul Corbett rather than McCain or Palin, but didn't Sarah Palin say more or less the same thing on Thursday night?

We have a cherished myth in this country, one that states that ordinary, inherently pure outsiders can storm the halls of power and make things better for the country, unlike the entrenched fatcats who have forgotten their roots. This scenario has been played out time after time in movies ranging from Capra's classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to the more recent Dave.  Both are movies I happen to enjoy a great deal but reality is much messier. Though I would not call George W. Bush a common man, he likes to play one on t.v. and embodies many of their attitudes. How well has he done over the last 8 years? 

Sarah Palin is, if anything, worse. Joe Conason, in his current Salon column, says she represents the dumbing down of the GOP. I submit that it is more than that. She represents the final step from merely pandering to "Joe Sixpack" to handing him the reigns of power. Like some latter-day Mr. Smith she plans to turn Washington around with her homespun wisdom and spunk, but Gov. Palin, you are no Jefferson Smith.

Ellison puts it best, and I cannot improve upon it:

"The Common Man is no longer merely as outdated as the passenger pigeon. He is a living menace. He is the man who votes for [George] Wallace because Wallace offers him easy cop-out solutions to the fears his feels. He is the man who thinks everybody can earn a living. He is the man who...believes there is no such thing as prejudice. He is the man who believes in what affects him, what he sees, or what is most consistent with the status quo that will keep him afloat. The time for worshipping The Common Man is past. We can no longer tolerate him, or countenance his stupidity."

I have hope that this might be finally getting through to the Silent Majority, Reagan Democrats that began abandoning the party in 1968, or at least that this is getting through to their children. My household is firmly in the range of what the Susskind panelists made, and we can barely support ourself on that. Even when you insist on voting against your economic interests at every turn, reality and its liberal bias can slap you in the face, and foreclosure and homelessness is a hard slap indeed.

Instead of being taken in by folksiness, hockey mom anecdotes, and fear-mongering, instead of worrying whether a candidate is "too smart" to be president, maybe we'd better consider whose intellect is best suited for the job. Folksiness and small-town spunk won't get us out of the mess we're in. 

Harlan Ellison put it best in the conclusion to his two-part column:

"If we are to continue living in this doomed world, if we are to save ourselves, we must kill off the Common Man in us and bring forth the Renaissance Man."

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
good piece destroying the myths that lie in abundance among the electorate. I do think Palin has affected a folksy turn to her manner.
Anyone can see this if you look at previous speeches and debates on you tube. It would not be the first time an insidious Fraud ran for office.
As a liberal Democrat who voted for the Obama-Biden ticket, I found it disheartening that many on the Left attacked Sarah Palin for her religious beliefs.

Sarah Palin's religious identity and beliefs should have been completely irrelevant in the secular, political arena. It's possible to discuss politics without bringing religion into it. Secular arguments are religiously neutral, and thus applicable to everyone--including atheists and agnostics.

In her essay "Life and Peace," for example, Juli Loesch describes her attendance at a Holly Near concert to benefit a local antinuclear group. She encounters literature tables for Native American folkways, Save the Whales, Ban the Bomb. Peace. Humanity. Abortion.

"ABORTION?" she writes. "It was as if I’d been handed a flowered note that contained a death threat. My hands went cold. I went back to my seat, my heart clogged. The irony was that I’d come to oppose abortion as a direct result of my own antinuclear activism."

Loesch writes that when she spoke out against abortion at an antinuclear gathering, she:

"...tried to present a meticulous secular case against abortion. I marshaled all the scientific evidence...I followed it up with the most basic principle found in every human ethical system...do not do to others what you would not like done to you.

"This was rewarded by a brief silence, which was broken by a single question:

‘Are you a Catholic?’

‘Am I a Catholic? That has nothing to do with...’

‘So you ARE a Catholic?’

‘Yes, but...’

‘Well, then. You’re imposing your religious beliefs...’

"And, therefore, I suppose, I lose."

I made a similar point in an interview with Abolitionist-Online in Australia. To argue (as some Christians do) that animal rights and vegetarianism are solely "Jewish" concerns is kind of like saying, "It's only wrong to own a slave if you're a Quaker." No. Suffering and injustice concern us all. Moral absolutes apply to everyone--including atheists and agnostics.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is 1.6 million strong (larger than any pro-life group), but try and discuss animal rights and vegetarianism with Christians apart from religion (since we're not trying to "convert" them to another religion--we just want them to stop being cruel to animals) and all they can think of is the MOVE !

I encounter "Christians," who, rather than answer the simple question: "Is it ethical to do to other animals what we would never do to other human beings?", focus on things like my religious identity, whether we worship in "churches" or "temples," whether or not we have to "work" for our salvation, whether we refer to sinners as "dogs" or use half a dozen different animal words, etc. These have nothing to do with the issue at hand!

Absolute truths apply to everyone; only a bigot would see them as sectarian. Hitler, for example, made the mistake of thinking Albert Einstein's scientific discoveries were merely "Jewish science" and therefore not applicable to gentiles. (In this case, perhaps it's fortunate that Hitler had such a bigoted mentality, or the Nazis might have gotten the bomb before us!)

Some Christians understand this. When I pointed out to Catholic pro-lifer Jim Frey of Berkeley Pro-Life that animal rights and vegetarianism apply to everyone, including atheists and agnostics, he said, "Just like with abortion."

Usually, it's the right which obsesses over one's religious identity--not the Left.

Regardless of how one feels about gun control, for example, does it really matter which church Jim & Sarah Brady worship at?

Again, Sarah Palin's religious identity and beliefs should have been completely irrelevant in the secular, political arena. It's possible to discuss politics without bringing religion into it. Let's just focus on the issues at hand.
Actually, I think we need a Renaissance women. An anti-Sarah Palin type who actually has intelligence and doesn't have to wink and wear spike heels to promote herself!!!