Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

The Party of Hard Work


A truism often repeated by Republicans in the wake of the recent elections is that they must do a better job appealing to Latino voters in coming years. This opinion surfaced before the election, too, but now it is clearer than ever to the party faithful. Conservatives recognize that their hard-line positions against immigration have earned them few friends in the Latino community (and in the Asian-American community, which columnist David Brooks says is a growing voting bloc the GOP must contend with, too). And yet, I have heard conservatives say on several occasions—most recently in a heated discussion between Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter the day after the election—that Latinos should, or will ultimately find the GOP appealing, because at bottom they are a hard-working people.

For his part, Hannity concluded that the election was a defeat for hard working Americans; Obama prevailed because he held a hand out to all those who don’t work hard—or won’t work hard, especially now that they have continued government assistance to rely on. The Obama platform, Hannity claimed, appealed to the inner adolescent in us—the inner slacker who wants everything handed to us on a platter. The GOP, meanwhile, took a harder, more responsible—more adult stance—and paid for their courage.

The Republicans are the Party of Hard Work: this is their self-fancied image. During the campaign, Mitt Romney backtracked considerably on his controversial statement that 47% of the electorate are free-loaders who don’t work hard—who mooch off the rest of us—and comprise a burden of dependence that the rest have to carry around like a mill-stone.

And yet, after the election this much disavowed ‘47% doctrine’ surged forth with a vengeance, revealing that it was no minor complaint or fringe opinion on the right, but rather, a mainstream conservative view all along: the country is divided between those who work hard, and those who don’t—and the GOP is the mature party that appeals to the former. So long as Latinos are a hard working people, they’ll come around to the GOP sooner or later.

This view is horribly misguided—or worse. It’s insulting to suggest that the Democratic wing is comprised of folk who have flocked there because they don’t want to or like to work hard—because they’re lazy, indolent, incompetent slackers. Where do conservatives get this conceit that they are the hard workers among us—indeed, the only ones, on the backs of whom everyone else is getting a free ride? It’s willful ignorance to cling to this pretense; it requires not looking at others, really assessing their lives, and seeing how people work and toil in different ways, under vastly different circumstances, but struggle nonetheless. Are there free-loaders among the Democrats’ ranks? Sure—but a recent study revealed that Republican leaning districts rely more on government support than their Democratic counterparts (“With Tax Comments, Romney wades into a Conservative Rift,” NY Times, 9/19/12). The characterization that Democrats are lazy moochers, and Republicans hard working Americans is too facile.

I might add that there is also a strong whiff of bigotry behind this view of things. Again harping on the lack of Latino support for Romney, a recent NY Post editorial stated that “Most Latinos are fundamentally conservative, in the sense of traditional values; the various Hispanic communities are church- and family-oriented. And Latinos are not afraid of hard work. In short, they would seem to be a natural fit for the GOP.” (NY Post, 11/8/12) The suggestion is clear: Latinos will come around to the GOP because they are a race of inherently industrious people. This of course implies the opposite, namely that there are races who are not naturally inclined to work hard—races that are inherently lazy—a common refrain from more shameful periods of American history. The inherently lazy races naturally vote for the Democrats’ handouts; the GOP does not want those races. In that case, Mitt was right: why even try for their vote? Republicans cannot lament how they lost the African American vote resoundingly, since their polemics elicit a racist code, intentionally or not.

In general though, conservatives do themselves no favors painting electoral divisions in such broad brushstrokes. When the GOP declares itself the party of hard work, and its opponents the opposite, this is to shun an honest and careful—and ultimately, productive—appraisal of the reasons they lost this presidential election. Echoing Sean Hannity, I might say the conservative narrative is equally tempting in its simplicity: it’s a refreshingly self-congratulatory outlook for those on the right. But it’s an overly simplistic view of things, which blatantly disregards complexity—and difference. I daresay this over-simplification likely played a role in driving voters away from the conservative narrative this time around. So long as Republicans cling to it, they will likely fall short in the polls.

Firmin DeBrabander is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art.


More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 20, 2016
Eric Draitser
Syria and the Left: Time to Break the Silence
Jeffrey St. Clair
Extreme Unction: Illusions of Democracy in Vegas
Binoy Kampmark
Digital Information Warfare: WikiLeaks, Assange and the US Presidential Elections
Jonathan Cook
Israel’s Bogus History Lesson
Bruce Mastron
Killing the Messenger, Again
Anthony DiMaggio
Lesser Evil Voting and Prospects for a Progressive Third Party
Ramzy Baroud
The Many ‘Truths’ on Syria: How Our Rivalry Has Destroyed a Country
David Rosen
Was Bill Clinton the Most Sexist President?
Laura Carlsen
Plan Colombia, Permanent War and the No Vote
Aidan O'Brien
Mao: Monster or Model?
David Swanson
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Less Than Two Weeks
Victor Grossman
Suicides and Hopes and Fears
October 19, 2016
Dan Schiller – Shinjoung Yeo
The Silicon Valley Candidate
Mike Whitney
Trump Unchained
Paul Buhle
Criminalizing the Struggle: Incarceration and the Rise of the Neoliberal State
Linn Washington Jr.
Abusing the Abused: Philly Police Abuse Case Typifies All-Too-Common Misconduct by US Prosecutors
Terry Tempest Williams - Brooke Williams
Rejected by the BLM
Binoy Kampmark
Neither War Nor Peace: Shimon Peres, Israel and History
Patrick Cockburn
This Battle for Mosul Will Not Be the Last
Joyce Nelson
Trudeau Bullying on Trade Deal
Thomas Mountain
Revolutionary Islam and Regime Change in Ethiopia
Serge Halimi – Benoît Bréville
The Limits of Eloquence: the Failures of Barack Obama
Mel Gurtov
America’s Dangerous Moment
Jerry Kroth
Questions for Obama Before Leaving Office
Michael Garrity
America is a Nation of Laws: Collaboration and Its Discontents
October 18, 2016
Srećko Horvat
The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
Zoltan Grossman
Stop the Next President From Waging the Next War
Jim Kavanagh
Hillary’s Hide-and-Seek
Robert Fisk
After Mosul Falls, ISIS will Flee to Syria. Then What?
Ted Rall
The 4 Things Hillary Could Do To Close the Deal Against Trump
Pepe Escobar
Why Hillary Clinton is a Bigger Concern for China than Donald Trump
Colin Todhunter
World Wide Fund for Nature: Stop Greenwashing Capitalism, Start Holding Corporations to Account
David Macaray
Whiskey Workers Go on Strike: I’ll Drink to That
James A Haught
After the Election, Back to Important Things
Arturo Desimone
How a Selective Boycott Can Boost External Support for Palestinians
Russell Mokhiber
If Chris Wallace Asks About Street Crime He Should Also Ask About Corporate Crime
Mark Kernan
Moloch in Paris: on the Anniversary of COP21
Carol Dansereau
The Hillary Push: Manipulation You Can Believe In
Andre Vltchek
Will They Really Try to Kill the President of the Philippines?
Sean Joseph Clancy
The Wreckage of Matthew: Cuba and Haiti
October 17, 2016
Paul Street
Pick Your Poison? Presidential Politics and Planetary Prospects
Patrick Cockburn
US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)
David Swanson
What Hillary Clinton Privately Told Goldman Sachs
Fran Shor
A Rigged System?