In my graduating year of high school, during an English course, I remember a rather profound disagreement I had with a peer of mine. It was over whether my statement that mothers’ magazines tend to be geared towards the middle class implied that “poor women can’t read”. I was firmly of the conviction that my proposition entailed no such thing, but it reveals a tendency in our reform liberal society that I want to address. That is, the association of class analysis with classism and how it’s limited our ability to deal with the stark realities of structural inequalities.
The dispute happened when – as a classroom – we reviewed the techniques of literary analysis. To conduct this pedagogical exercise we read a short story (probably published in a parenting magazine) on a mother’s experience with her son’s sadness after his first breakup (as a twist at the end, it is revealed her son isn’t sad so much as confounded on how to interact with his new girlfriend - something the reader and mother don’t uncover until the conclusion of the story). We English students had to give out some ideas as to who the intended audience was – generic statements like “mothers” or “parents” or even “women” sufficed.
I, on the other hand, took it to a more fine-grained level and asserted that middle class women would be the main audience for that piece. A peer of mine in the room completely misinterpreted the assertion and rhetorically asked if I was saying that “poor women can’t read ... because if you are, I disagree.” In hindsight this strikes me as intellectually lazy self-righteousness at its worst.
My actual claim was that since the working poor and (to a lesser extent) working class in general spend more time working and eking out a living, they’d have less time to read parental magazines. My genuine claim actually contained a little bit of reverse snobbery – I felt that only parents with at least a middle class level of income could truly afford to mull over what – to the vast majority of the world – would seem like trivialities.
Another person I spoke to told me that “while that may generally be true” I shouldn’t make such generalizations as occasionally there are some people who do read a lot and end up on the fringes. This person gave me an example of somebody they knew who was a (verbal and visual-spatial) genius that obtained great pleasure out of reading textbooks yet was homeless.
This was also a misinterpretation of my proposition. I never said there were no hyper-literate people who had fallen through the cracks of society and not even that there were no generationally poor bibliophiles. My claim was simply that the working poor tended not to buy frivolous lifestyle magazines and the editorial content of those magazines was influenced by that fact.
“While you’re right, it’s bad to generalize” is a pretty daft counterargument – as the people who make magazines work on the basis of market demographic generalizations!
Less you think I am some high minded latte leftist who lectures on about social class with no real life experience of the near bottom let me give you some autobiographical details. Most of my childhood was spent in a working poor single-parent household in the North End of Winnipeg. I wasn’t apart of anything resembling a large close nit family – it was just me and my single parent. While I didn’t realize it at the time, much of the time and effort of my parent went into securing ends meet. There were none of the structured enrichment activities many of my generationally middle class peers in high school had – although some of this was due to my profound aloofness and introversion as a child1.
While my parent managed to successfully beat the cycle of poverty and has moved on up into the middle class, lest not you think I’m ignorant of the immense structural hurdles one must overcome to climb up that ladder. I firmly believe our society is only marginally meritocratic when it comes to social mobility – differences in position between the super-rich and the poor are due more from historical accident than innate talent. Talent isn’t strictly preserved – familial wealth is2.
And this brings me to a crucial point – why talk of social class is so “politically incorrect” in Canada. Whereas traditional conservatism depends on praising structural inequalities to avoid redressing them, reform liberalism avoids talk of it altogether. Speaking of social class as if it were real therefore entails snobbery or classism rather than the simple acknowledgment that a spade is a spade.
This tendency does not blunt the reality of structural inequality to all but the most delusional of people. Tough conditions will continue and their effects will be widespread whether or not we like to artificially compartmentalize them – that is to say, fantasize that a boy whose mother or father had to work long hours each day or try to manage money or even try to ease the burden of their existence, would be in as optimal a position as someone born in suburbs with a 100K family savings account to be the beneficiary of early reading and enrichment. That is absurd!
Social inequality pervades all facets of life – it cannot be abstracted away from any situation easily – it is not a localized feature. Social class has global effects on a person. Until we as a nation realize this, visions of a fairer society will be pipedreams.
ENDNOTES
1.There was some opportunity for athletic activities – indeed, even encouragement from my parent – but a lack of motivation and horrendous motor coordination closed off that avenue.
2. Indeed, it is because I hold this true that I was once offended by a peer of mine in high school who suggested I was the “brains of the family” considering my relatives were working class, working poor, or plain old poor. This implied that the social class system of Canada is completely or predominantly meritocratic, something I deny.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Paucity of Conservative Appeal
In spite of all the moaning and groaning rightwing faux populists make over "leftist elites" or "champagne socialists", the fact remains that conservatism is a very elite phenomena. Conservatives will try all sorts of machinations to broaden their base - appealing to a natural fear of change, appeals to the worst elements of human nature (prejudices against homosexuals, foreigners, or countercultural groups), association with piety, and an appeal to greed ("Do you want the gommit to steal your hard earned money?"). Despite all these attempts to make conservatism popular or at least populist, nothing works more for conservative parties, organizations, and movements than suppressing the vote.
Christian Right
The Christian Right is a movement predominantly (but not exclusively) in America that obscures real issues with religious rhetoric and a hyperactive sense of "providence" - they see (at least in their rhetoric) the hand of divine intervention everywhere. The American Christian Right began in the 1970s as a backlash to legalized abortion and mandatory desegregation in parochial schools1. The later issue, very crucial in the early days, has been dropped as the movement tries to wash its hands of racism, although issues concerning whether religious schools can legally insulate curious students from post-18th century biology and comprehensive sex education still galvanize the movement.
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Paul Weyrich built up much of the organizational structure of the movement. Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and founder of the misleadingly named Free Congress Foundation, once said to a group of rightwing religious leaders:
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."2
The Christian Right can be seen as conservatism in its most popular form - it appeals to the religious sensibilities of certain members of the working and middle classes, predominantly those from the rural sections of south-eastern states. Yet even these conservatives depend on one thing - poor turnout - to influence politics. The de facto cultural and political enfranchisement of minorities and mainstream workers threatens them more than anything - even if these groups tend to be religious and somewhat culturally conservative.
Ironically, many elite critics of grassroots politics like to imagine the Christian Right as the "rabble" which took over the Republican Party from the more respectable country clubbers. Indeed, in his condensations towards Nader, Eric Alterman3 has used the Christian Right as an example of how ordinary citizens can take over a major political party. The analogy is misleading, nonetheless because the empowerment of the Christian Right was influenced by chandelier conservatives like Justice Powel as a way to counteract leftwing populism with a less substantive countermovement4. The Christian Right - except for the occasional blue law and perhaps the sex industry - doesn't threaten business interests and can therefore be permitted rhetorical power over the Republican Party as the country club conservatives loot the treasury and sell off government in the background.
It’s staggering how anti-populist the Christian Right truly is seeing how they oppose voter turnout. The key device of the Christian Right has been named the "12.5% strategy"5. If only 50% of the electorate votes in congressional, senatorial, or presidential elections and about half that vote in primary elections, then 12.5% of the electorate can have profound influence over the course of an election. Higher civic participation dilutes the influence of the Christian rightists, which is why many (such as Paul Weyrich) support measures that effectively limit the vote. Civic virtue, in short, undermines the civically vicious Christian right.
Conservative Alberta
The Conservative Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta6 continually celebrate the super-duper majority they seem to maintain in Alberta. Snide centrists from Ontario and select patches of eastern Canada may even view Alberta or (more egregiously) the entire West as full of politically backward and ignorant ultraconservatives. As appealing as this regional condescension might be, it misses an essential point: the mandate conservatives have in Alberta is very weak when you consider the low turnout.
In 2008, the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta (PCAA) won another landside victory in the provincial elections. Ed Stelmach became the Province’s next Premier and his party won 72 of the Provincial Legislature’s 83 seats7. The problem is only 41% of those who could vote did!8 Even with the popular vote of actual voters counted, the PCAA only garnered 53% of the popular vote (with the ultra-right “Wildrose Alliance” earning 7% of the actual popular vote). How a government with such a marginal majority can form a supermajority in the legislature works is thanks to structural features of the “Winner Take All” system in Canada which manufactures majorities.
Okay, support for the provincial conservatives isn’t as rock-solid as snide Ontarian centrists might think, but what about the Province’s adoration for federal Conservatives? For 2008, the case with the popular vote indicates the Conservatives won a strong majority of 64.62% of actual voters9. But an analysis of the election reveals historically low turnouts throughout the nation that year10. Only 52.9% of the Albertan electorate voted in the 2008 Federal election11, meaning that only 34% of the Albertan Federal electorate explicitly approved the Conservative Party of Canada through voting.
The strength of Albertan Conservatism appears to be civic disinterest. Any ideology based on such a condition is not secure in the hearts and minds of the people.
Sam Katz Mayoralty
In 2004 rightwing businessman Sam Katz won the Winnipeg Mayoral election – beating out centre-left contender Dan Vandal. Katz won with 43% of actual voters casting their ballets for him12. This clearly isn’t a supermajority. Furthermore, when one examines all eligible voters, it becomes readily apparent that only 25% of them explicitly endorsed his mayoralty13.
In 2006 Katz repeated his feat, winning 61.60% of total votes cast. This feat is still diminished when one realizes that the year had record low turnout – with only 23% of the total eligible electorate explicitly endorsing his mayoralty.14 Katz’s strongest showing was, in short, achieved when the least people chose to vote.
So, while one may consider Winnipeg rather conservative given its current mayor, when one looks at how much explicit consent has been given, we find Katz ruling on little enthusiasm. When one considers the low voter turnout and notices patterns of particularly poor turnout in poorer areas15, one must wonder whether a centrist small-l liberal like Glenn Murray is really the best thing the city can hope for. Surely, the effective enfranchisement of numerous groups – the young, the poor, aboriginals, recent immigrants, and the working class – that have showed up to the polls sparsely could truly revolutionize the municipal scene in Winnipeg.
Katz knows this – which explains his hostility to attempts by the Winnipeg Citizens’ Coalition to drive up municipal turnout. This drive – especially if aimed at members of the working poor of Winnipeg – would ruin his chances at re-election. Katz lambasts the work the Winnipeg Citizens’ Coalition as an “NDP driven” “leftwing plot” to “take over city hall”16. This shows the man’s true colours – that of a plutocrat trying to rule with the minority of the opulent rather than by the majority of the people17.
Conservatism as Rule by the Opulent Minority
The last few decades have been of increasingly conservative politics and corporate-centred international trade. “Centre-left” parties like the Liberals in Canada and the Labour Party in Britain have become watered down versions of the right to the point where it’s senseless to talk of them as “centre-left”18. Canada’s policies have shifted from one of counter-cyclical Keynesianism and concern for social welfare to one of concern solely with corporate welfare and securing foreign markets (which has lead to an increasingly militaristic foreign policy).
Protecting the rights of workers is eschewed while the right of corporations to monopolies (patents) is expanding – to our very genomes. Ours is an age of corporate globalization, not civic globalization.
One trend is clear throughout – voter turnouts have gone done and conservative policies have been implemented. Whether the adoption of corporate globalization has triggered the decline of voting or the inverse or some tertiary factor is responsible, one thing is clear: civic apathy isn’t hurting corporate conservatives.
Whether under the guise of a ultra-blue Liberal Party or plain old Conservatives, its clear the participation of the opulent to the exclusion of many others is the sign of a conservative era. Mass political action, otherwise known as democracy, is the antidote.
ENDNOTS
1. The racial politics of the Christian Right. Retrieved from The Comment Factory.
2. The New face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America. People for the American Way.
Actual footage of the quote can be found HERE.
3. From interview footage in the documentary Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man.
4. The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of Rightwing Extremists. Truthout article
5. See http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/10/cable-news-who-cares.html
6. Yes, its Association rather than Party. http://www.albertapc.ab.ca/public/data/documents/2292_PC_Constitution.pdf
7. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/2008-alberta-general-election#results
8.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/03/05/edm-turnout.html
9. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/
10. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html
11. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/15/voter-turnout.html
12. 99 015 (Sam Katz) + 55644 (Dan Vandal) + 34562 (Al Golden) + 23412 (MaryAnn Mihychuck) + 16497 (Garth Steek) + 1986 (Gordon Kirkby) + 801 (Shirley Tim-Rudolf) + 528 (Nelson Morrison) + 453 (Natalie Pollock) = 232 898
99 015÷232 898 ≈ 0.425 Numbers available here: http://www.winnipeg.ca/Clerks/pdfs/elections/2006election/E06Results.pdf.
13. 43*0.588 (the decimal representing the percentage of people voting – with 1 indicating total turnout) ≈ 25
14. .01*0.38 ≈23Numbers obtained from http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/features/winnipegvotes2006/.
15. 'A Very Hostile System in Which to Live': Aboriginal Electoral Participation in Winnipeg's Inner City. This study on Aboriginal participation in Winnipeg elections notes that, due to the general socioeconomic status of aboriginals (as members of the poor or working poor) they tend no to vote, along with other factors.
16. See http://www.unionbug.ca/home/11/176.
17. This mayoral race – ironically enough – Katz is trying to mobilize some (anti-NDP) voters against Judy Wasylycia-Leis. He’s using the typical rightwing strategy of “positive polarization” – demonizing the enemy over key issues to win. I hope that the Wasylycia-Leis campaign manages to register as many new voters from traditionally excluded areas to counter these moves.
Source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/katz-mobilizes-to-get-out-vote-98489194.html.
18. One may even be sceptical of whether the Liberal Party of Canada was ever “centre-left”. Sure, Pierre Trudeau participated in some economic strategies (not all of that that well thought out) of a nationalistic flavour, but he was quite the exception. Most Liberals have only jeered left when forced to by a strong New Democratic presence in parliament. It may be more accurate to talk of the Liberals as being a dead centre party in the post-war period – practicing the reform liberalism various European parties had run and died on during the polarization between social democratic and conservative parties in Europe. Now, of course, the very blue Liberals ought to be viewed as a centre-right party.
Christian Right
The Christian Right is a movement predominantly (but not exclusively) in America that obscures real issues with religious rhetoric and a hyperactive sense of "providence" - they see (at least in their rhetoric) the hand of divine intervention everywhere. The American Christian Right began in the 1970s as a backlash to legalized abortion and mandatory desegregation in parochial schools1. The later issue, very crucial in the early days, has been dropped as the movement tries to wash its hands of racism, although issues concerning whether religious schools can legally insulate curious students from post-18th century biology and comprehensive sex education still galvanize the movement.
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Paul Weyrich built up much of the organizational structure of the movement. Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and founder of the misleadingly named Free Congress Foundation, once said to a group of rightwing religious leaders:
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."2
The Christian Right can be seen as conservatism in its most popular form - it appeals to the religious sensibilities of certain members of the working and middle classes, predominantly those from the rural sections of south-eastern states. Yet even these conservatives depend on one thing - poor turnout - to influence politics. The de facto cultural and political enfranchisement of minorities and mainstream workers threatens them more than anything - even if these groups tend to be religious and somewhat culturally conservative.
Ironically, many elite critics of grassroots politics like to imagine the Christian Right as the "rabble" which took over the Republican Party from the more respectable country clubbers. Indeed, in his condensations towards Nader, Eric Alterman3 has used the Christian Right as an example of how ordinary citizens can take over a major political party. The analogy is misleading, nonetheless because the empowerment of the Christian Right was influenced by chandelier conservatives like Justice Powel as a way to counteract leftwing populism with a less substantive countermovement4. The Christian Right - except for the occasional blue law and perhaps the sex industry - doesn't threaten business interests and can therefore be permitted rhetorical power over the Republican Party as the country club conservatives loot the treasury and sell off government in the background.
It’s staggering how anti-populist the Christian Right truly is seeing how they oppose voter turnout. The key device of the Christian Right has been named the "12.5% strategy"5. If only 50% of the electorate votes in congressional, senatorial, or presidential elections and about half that vote in primary elections, then 12.5% of the electorate can have profound influence over the course of an election. Higher civic participation dilutes the influence of the Christian rightists, which is why many (such as Paul Weyrich) support measures that effectively limit the vote. Civic virtue, in short, undermines the civically vicious Christian right.
Conservative Alberta
The Conservative Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta6 continually celebrate the super-duper majority they seem to maintain in Alberta. Snide centrists from Ontario and select patches of eastern Canada may even view Alberta or (more egregiously) the entire West as full of politically backward and ignorant ultraconservatives. As appealing as this regional condescension might be, it misses an essential point: the mandate conservatives have in Alberta is very weak when you consider the low turnout.
In 2008, the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta (PCAA) won another landside victory in the provincial elections. Ed Stelmach became the Province’s next Premier and his party won 72 of the Provincial Legislature’s 83 seats7. The problem is only 41% of those who could vote did!8 Even with the popular vote of actual voters counted, the PCAA only garnered 53% of the popular vote (with the ultra-right “Wildrose Alliance” earning 7% of the actual popular vote). How a government with such a marginal majority can form a supermajority in the legislature works is thanks to structural features of the “Winner Take All” system in Canada which manufactures majorities.
Okay, support for the provincial conservatives isn’t as rock-solid as snide Ontarian centrists might think, but what about the Province’s adoration for federal Conservatives? For 2008, the case with the popular vote indicates the Conservatives won a strong majority of 64.62% of actual voters9. But an analysis of the election reveals historically low turnouts throughout the nation that year10. Only 52.9% of the Albertan electorate voted in the 2008 Federal election11, meaning that only 34% of the Albertan Federal electorate explicitly approved the Conservative Party of Canada through voting.
The strength of Albertan Conservatism appears to be civic disinterest. Any ideology based on such a condition is not secure in the hearts and minds of the people.
Sam Katz Mayoralty
In 2004 rightwing businessman Sam Katz won the Winnipeg Mayoral election – beating out centre-left contender Dan Vandal. Katz won with 43% of actual voters casting their ballets for him12. This clearly isn’t a supermajority. Furthermore, when one examines all eligible voters, it becomes readily apparent that only 25% of them explicitly endorsed his mayoralty13.
In 2006 Katz repeated his feat, winning 61.60% of total votes cast. This feat is still diminished when one realizes that the year had record low turnout – with only 23% of the total eligible electorate explicitly endorsing his mayoralty.14 Katz’s strongest showing was, in short, achieved when the least people chose to vote.
So, while one may consider Winnipeg rather conservative given its current mayor, when one looks at how much explicit consent has been given, we find Katz ruling on little enthusiasm. When one considers the low voter turnout and notices patterns of particularly poor turnout in poorer areas15, one must wonder whether a centrist small-l liberal like Glenn Murray is really the best thing the city can hope for. Surely, the effective enfranchisement of numerous groups – the young, the poor, aboriginals, recent immigrants, and the working class – that have showed up to the polls sparsely could truly revolutionize the municipal scene in Winnipeg.
Katz knows this – which explains his hostility to attempts by the Winnipeg Citizens’ Coalition to drive up municipal turnout. This drive – especially if aimed at members of the working poor of Winnipeg – would ruin his chances at re-election. Katz lambasts the work the Winnipeg Citizens’ Coalition as an “NDP driven” “leftwing plot” to “take over city hall”16. This shows the man’s true colours – that of a plutocrat trying to rule with the minority of the opulent rather than by the majority of the people17.
Conservatism as Rule by the Opulent Minority
The last few decades have been of increasingly conservative politics and corporate-centred international trade. “Centre-left” parties like the Liberals in Canada and the Labour Party in Britain have become watered down versions of the right to the point where it’s senseless to talk of them as “centre-left”18. Canada’s policies have shifted from one of counter-cyclical Keynesianism and concern for social welfare to one of concern solely with corporate welfare and securing foreign markets (which has lead to an increasingly militaristic foreign policy).
Protecting the rights of workers is eschewed while the right of corporations to monopolies (patents) is expanding – to our very genomes. Ours is an age of corporate globalization, not civic globalization.
One trend is clear throughout – voter turnouts have gone done and conservative policies have been implemented. Whether the adoption of corporate globalization has triggered the decline of voting or the inverse or some tertiary factor is responsible, one thing is clear: civic apathy isn’t hurting corporate conservatives.
Whether under the guise of a ultra-blue Liberal Party or plain old Conservatives, its clear the participation of the opulent to the exclusion of many others is the sign of a conservative era. Mass political action, otherwise known as democracy, is the antidote.
ENDNOTS
1. The racial politics of the Christian Right. Retrieved from The Comment Factory.
2. The New face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America. People for the American Way.
Actual footage of the quote can be found HERE.
3. From interview footage in the documentary Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man.
4. The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of Rightwing Extremists. Truthout article
5. See http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/10/cable-news-who-cares.html
6. Yes, its Association rather than Party. http://www.albertapc.ab.ca/public/data/documents/2292_PC_Constitution.pdf
7. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/2008-alberta-general-election#results
8.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/03/05/edm-turnout.html
9. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/
10. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html
11. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/15/voter-turnout.html
12. 99 015 (Sam Katz) + 55644 (Dan Vandal) + 34562 (Al Golden) + 23412 (MaryAnn Mihychuck) + 16497 (Garth Steek) + 1986 (Gordon Kirkby) + 801 (Shirley Tim-Rudolf) + 528 (Nelson Morrison) + 453 (Natalie Pollock) = 232 898
99 015÷232 898 ≈ 0.425 Numbers available here: http://www.winnipeg.ca/Clerks/pdfs/elections/2006election/E06Results.pdf.
13. 43*0.588 (the decimal representing the percentage of people voting – with 1 indicating total turnout) ≈ 25
14. .01*0.38 ≈23Numbers obtained from http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/features/winnipegvotes2006/.
15. 'A Very Hostile System in Which to Live': Aboriginal Electoral Participation in Winnipeg's Inner City. This study on Aboriginal participation in Winnipeg elections notes that, due to the general socioeconomic status of aboriginals (as members of the poor or working poor) they tend no to vote, along with other factors.
16. See http://www.unionbug.ca/home/11/176.
17. This mayoral race – ironically enough – Katz is trying to mobilize some (anti-NDP) voters against Judy Wasylycia-Leis. He’s using the typical rightwing strategy of “positive polarization” – demonizing the enemy over key issues to win. I hope that the Wasylycia-Leis campaign manages to register as many new voters from traditionally excluded areas to counter these moves.
Source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/katz-mobilizes-to-get-out-vote-98489194.html.
18. One may even be sceptical of whether the Liberal Party of Canada was ever “centre-left”. Sure, Pierre Trudeau participated in some economic strategies (not all of that that well thought out) of a nationalistic flavour, but he was quite the exception. Most Liberals have only jeered left when forced to by a strong New Democratic presence in parliament. It may be more accurate to talk of the Liberals as being a dead centre party in the post-war period – practicing the reform liberalism various European parties had run and died on during the polarization between social democratic and conservative parties in Europe. Now, of course, the very blue Liberals ought to be viewed as a centre-right party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
