|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
E.J. Dionne Jr.: No More NASCAR FakersPosted on Dec 18, 2006WASHINGTON—When a nation alters its philosophical direction and changes its assumptions, there is no press release to announce the shift, no news conference where The People declare they have decided to move down a different path. Yet 2006 is looking more and more like one of history’s hinge years, a moment when old ideas are cast aside, new leaders emerge and old leaders decide to speak in new ways. The changes in politics and culture are visible in the many sudden and outright reversals of the conventional wisdom. Nowhere is the evidence of change more striking than among the young, whose attitudes and behavior are usually leading indicators of social transformation. In 1984, three exit polls pegged Ronald Reagan’s share of the ballots cast by Americans under 30 at between 57 percent and 60 percent. Reagan-style conservatism seemed fresh, optimistic and innovative. In 2006, voters under 30 gave 60 percent of their votes to Democratic House candidates, according to the shared media exit poll. Conservatism now looks old, tired and ineffectual. When the right seemed headed to dominance in the early 1990s, the hot political media trend was talk radio and the star was Rush Limbaugh, a smart entrepreneur who spawned imitators around the country and all across the AM dial. Advertisement It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrats and liberals were said to be out of touch with “the real America,” which was defined as encompassing the states that voted for President Bush in 2004, including the entire South. Democrats seemed to accept this definition of reality and they struggled—often looking ridiculous in the process—to become fluent in NASCAR talk and to discuss religion with the inflections of a white southern evangelicalism foreign to so many of them. Now, the conventional wisdom sees Republicans becoming merely a Southern regional party. Isn’t it amazing how quickly the supposedly “real America” was transformed into a besieged conservative enclave out of touch with the rest of the country? Now, religious moderates and liberals are speaking in their own tongues, and the free-thinking, down-to-earth citizens of the Rocky Mountain states are, in large numbers, fed up with right-wing ideology. Only a few months ago, it was widely thought (and not just by Republican consultants) that accusing opponents of wanting to “cut and run’’ in Iraq would be enough to cast political enemies into an unpatriotic netherworld of wimps and “defeatocrats.” Now, the burden of proof is on those who claim that fighting in Iraq was a good idea and that the situation can be turned around. The call for a “surge” of additional troops is greeted with skepticism because Americans have been told too often that this or that new approach would transform the situation in “three to six months.” The Iraq Study Group’s grim description of what’s going on is the accepted definition of reality. Polls show majorities embracing the report not, I suspect, because most Americans are conversant with its every detail. Rather, they see its take as closer to the truth than the president’s accounts over the last three years, and because it appears to point toward disengagement. Since the 1970s, supply-side conservatives have been brilliantly successful in redefining economic thinking. They shifted the popular focus from workers to entrepreneurs, from incomes to wealth, from job creation to share-price increases, and from government policy innovation to private-sector autonomy. Suddenly, economic inequality is a problem even conservatives are taking seriously. Corporate America is looked upon, let us say, in less heroic terms. Economic security is no longer a dirty phrase and staunch capitalists aren’t quite so eager to preach the virtues of “creative destruction” to displaced industrial workers. Government—with some wariness, to be sure—is being invited back into the economic story to redress grievances and to right imbalances. How durable are these changes? In both politics and culture, the side that thinks it’s losing usually accommodates itself to the ascendant order. My hunch is that we will be seeing many new claims to moderation and social concern on the right, and many fewer fake NASCAR fans on the left. Previous item: Worse Than Apartheid Next item: Froma Harrop: Will Americans Sacrifice for Posterity? New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By NASCAR Liberal, December 21, 2006 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I am a lifetime liberal and I own a NASCAR related business and have always worked for the most leftwing of policies.
If YOU had ever been to a NASCAR race or event, YOU might have some credibility to talk about who NASCAR fans are and what they represent. But, I’d guess your only experience with it is via the stereotypical things presented by the rightwingnut press.
I deal with NASCAR fans, drivers, vendors, sponsors, etc on almost a daily basis. And, yes, some voted Republican ... but just as many voted Democratic. They are not a stereotype, they are a microcosm of AMERICA. They did not as a group put “W” into power, they voted individually for the candidates they thought best.
Yes, military recruiters hit the NASCAR races hard and sponsor vehicles. More soldiers are recruited at NASCAR events than any other sporting events. However, there are MORE NASCAR races yearly than any other major league sports events. It isn’t NASCAR that is responsible for sending these people to their death in Iraq, it is the people in D.C. ... and that isn’t NASCAR central. I doubt GWB has a clue how NASCAR works, and Chaingangster (after a visit THIS year to the pits) admitted he didn’t know how sophisticated it is.
Can anyone become President without gaining the votes of a majority of NASCAR related folks? No. This is a group that includes everything from rocket scientists and physicists to your curbside trash pickup workers. It is diverse to the extreme. And woe to ANY candidate, or candidate’s advisor, who doesn’t understand that.
Report thisBy Luke, December 20, 2006 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Economic Inequality is a very big deal. Here’s one for you - Who is going to buy the your house? Support the new restaurant that just opened on your way home? To attend the sporting events, concerts, theater etc.? What I’m getting at is, purchases, assumptions and activities that were a common thread among middle-class families of the past are not going to be afforded by the next generation if there are not dramatic changes. When Walmart is your biggest employer, when health care costs are rising and those costs are being ladled onto the plate of the workers, when wages are stagnant, when college graduates are coming out with monster loans with rising interest rates - you’ve got a problem brewing in your economy. A problem I believe is especially related to the rapacious salaries, and irresponsible tax breaks given to the economic elite. If people can’t afford to buy your products guys - your gonna feel the pain.
Report thisBy Scott Supak, December 20, 2006 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The difference between Stewart/Colbert vis-a-vis Limpbaugh is the level of truthiness. Where as Limpbaugh sticks to the wing nut talking points, the Daily Show and Colbert Report staff ridicule all sides when they venture too far from the truthiness of things. Stewart/Colbert are more concerned with reality and philosophy, as opposed to the fantasy/ideology of the right. Hopefully, with this new cool, we will find ourselves venturing into a world governed by more reality based people in both parties, where honest, open debate can drive constructive policy that actually helps people.
Report thisBy anna m., December 19, 2006 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I used to watch NASCAR before it was in vogue. I was liberal than and I am still a liberal. Of course when the republicans started taking over the course well I stopped watching. I am glad the country is finally getting smart and realizing the government should help middle america. There is something wrong with this country when companies don’t put their employees first. The CEO’s make millions of dollars and they can’t give mimimum wage increases.
Report thisBy Richard, December 19, 2006 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Funny you should mention fake NASCAR fans. Until a couple years ago, I had been a race fan (and a libertarian) all of my adult life—grinning and bearing the praying, the flag-waving, the Good Lord hillbilly theology, and pre-race ceremonies that resembled the Nazi rallies in 1930s Nuremburg, because I found the sport individualistic and exciting.
Then Donald Rumsfeld led the Pledge of Allegiance—emphasizing the words under God—prior to the start of a September Nextel Cup race at Richmond. I wont go into how I think the pledge is designed to instill a sense of patriotism in grammar-school children—not adults—or how a member of the Cabinet should not be promoting religion. Suffice it to say that I gave up my top-row seat priorities at Martinsville and Las Vegas, divested myself of caps and other NASCAR artifacts I had accrued, and havent even watched a race on television since.
I consider NASCAR culpable in the needless deaths of American GIs in Bushs self-indulgent war in Iraq, and the loss of my civil liberties in the name of the medieval concept of patriotism that NASCAR promotes.
Gentlemen, start your engines and drive south.
Report this