FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Party of Hard Work

by FIRMIN DeBRABANDER

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:
July 25, 2016
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
As the Election Turns: Trump the Anti-Neocon, Hillary the New Darling of the Neocons
Ted Rall
Hillary’s Strategy: Snub Liberal Democrats, Move Right to Nab Anti-Trump Republicans
William K. Black
Doubling Down on Wall Street: Hillary and Tim Kaine
Quincy Saul
Resurgent Mexico
Andy Thayer
Letter to a Bernie Activist
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan is Strengthened by the Failed Coup, But Turkey is the Loser
Robert Fisk
The Hypocrisies of Terror Talk
Lee Hall
Purloined Platitudes and Bipartisan Bunk: An Adjunct’s View
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of Collective Punishment: Russia, Doping and WADA
Nozomi Hayase
Cryptography as Democratic Weapon Against Demagoguery
Cesar Chelala
The Real Donald Trump
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Propaganda Machinery and State Surveillance of Muslim Children
Denis Conroy
Australia: Election Time Blues for Clones
Marjorie Cohn
Killing With Robots Increases Militarization of Police
David Swanson
RNC War Party, DNC War Makers
Eugene Schulman
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict
Nauman Sadiq
Imran Khan’s Faustian Bargain
Peter Breschard
Kaine the Weepy Executioner
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail