Tyler Bilbo, Staff Writer
Ideology: Partisan Democrat | Writing From: Washington, DC
The media has pathological obsession with Sarah Palin and her personal life. For an unsuccessful running mate who can barely form a sentence, she gets an undeserved amount of free media. The media’s fixation on the most trivial aspects of her celebrity, however, comes at the expense of her relevance as a major player in the 2010 elections.
Palin, however, is potentially a major player in the 2010 midterm elections. Palin’s background constitutes much of her star power and the media is not entirely ridiculous for examining her personal life. A mother of five from Wasilla, Alaska, Palin is the type of atypical politician that attracts disaffected voters in the type of anti-incumbent environment that has fallen upon us. From her folksy charm to her status as an unabashedly conservative woman, Palin defies a variety of conventional features of American politicians. It is this overarching contrast from the conventional American politician that has maintained Sarah Palin’s relevance since her unsuccessful bid for Vice President.
Since last November, however, Palin has evolved beyond a relevant political figure and into a spokesperson for the GOP’s conservative base. As the memory of Ronald Reagan fades, Palin has established herself as the preeminent face of grassroots conservatives. Her ascendance since Senator McCain selected her, however, is not merely the by-product of a politically frustrated electorate that demands a radically different alternative to the status quo. Unlike any other Republican, Palin appeals to the mythically revered values of rugged individualism that characterize the American West while simultaneously carving out an equally significant niche among racially anxious Southerners. Her ability to enthuse both of these regions is what makes her a superstar that has the ability to influence the upcoming midterms.
Backlash politics is at the heart of Palin’s appeal to such different areas of the country. As I’ve previously discussed, backlash politics exploits culturally conservative voters who feel threatened by a dominant class of cultural progressives. While many of these voters are deeply embedded in the ongoing cultural wars that emphasize social issues, their cultural conservatism targets a wide array of institutions that operate within the so-called “liberal elite.”This mindset triggers a rebellion against left-wing economic policies when social welfare programs become implicitly associated with cultural progressives.
The concept of backlash politics that I outline differs significantly from its original application in Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas. As I wrote back in September, Frank portrays the type of cultural divide in America that directs a backlash against the perception of culturally liberal elite that I describe above. Frank’s analysis, however, does not go beyond the typical issues of our ongoing culture war such as gay rights and abortion. What’s unfolding today transcends the religious conservatism that dominates the culture war between the religious right and the rest of America and Sarah Palin is well-positioned to lead backlash voters in both the South and the West.
The backlash mentality of the American West arises from a set of distinctly individualistic characteristics that have existed since the American frontier that Palin effectively stimulates. The harrowing stories of pioneers throughout the American West have constructed a narrative of rugged individualism that instills the region with a unique sense of pride. Naturally, the region’s more conservative descendants have developed an aversion to the notion of an active federal government and Sarah Palin’s anti-government rhetoric coincides nicely to the West’s fear of government intervention.
What separates Palin from the typical anti-government politician is her ability to endear conservative voters in the region to her status as an independent conservative woman. As a region, the West pioneered the women’s suffrage movement as Wyoming became the first state to grant women the right to vote while Montana elected Janet Rankin, the first women to serve in the United States Congress. Palin’s profile as a powerful and independent woman who still sufficiently personifies conservative notions of womanhood enthuses the region’s backlash voters in a way that a man simply cannot.
The symbolism of common, every-day Americans setting out for a better life on the frontier has created an embrace of Palin’s down-to-earth “hockey mom” shtick. In a region that was built on the backs of ordinary Americans who settled in the West, Palin registers an endearingly ordinary appeal that identifies with her constituency. When people hear Palin bemoan the absence of down-home common sense among our political class, the West’s backlash mentality conjures up images of the region’s ruggedly individualistic roots and how its characteristics are notably absent from the public policy arena.
Palin’s appeal in the South is more complicated because it is much more intertwined with our President. This is not to suggest that any of the West’s characteristics of a ruggedly individualistic frontier are entirely absent from the psyche of the South’s backlash constituency. It is, however, important to note that Barack Obama made significant inroads in the West last year while he did not manage to win a single state in the Deep South. Although Obama’s contrast against the failures of the Bush administration was enough to appeal to the character of many Western states, the South ultimately rejected his candidacy. Virginia and North Carolina, the only states in the region that did not, both contain unusually high concentrations of cultural liberals for Southern states.
Palin energizes the Southern grassroots because she is the anti-Obama who effectively preys on the region’s volatile racial animus. This is not to suggest that racial tension is exclusive to Southern politics. The region’s sorry racial history, however, has not magically evaporated and the remnants of Jim Crow persist in today’s attitudes. Barack Obama represents the type of progress for black people that the Southern backlash voter abhors. Palin, a lesser educated, less rhetorically polished conservative Christian not only puts forth an attractive personal profile, she starkly contrasts against Obama’s symbol of racial progress. Her background as an ordinary white woman who was able to climb her way to political prominence represents the same type of narrative that the South’s backlash constituency is trying to reconstruct against contemporary blacks.
There are currently dozens of seats held by Democrats in the South and the West. From deeply entrenched incumbents like Vic Snyder in Arkansas to freshman like Colorado’s Betsy Markey, Democrats in both regions will be on the defensive in 2010. What Republicans need is an aggressor like Sarah Palin on the campaign trail to enthuse the backlash culture that each region harvests. As her critics tear into her newly released memoirs, Republicans should remember her value to the party and establish her as a major figure in delivering two of the Democrat’s most vulnerable regions.

I love your argument. Southerners did not vote for Obama, Obama is black. Therefore, southerners are racist.
Tyler,
People are opposed to Barack Obama because he is a liberal pushing policies that they don’t agree with.
Hard to believe, I know! But it actually is that simple.
Saying that “the South is against Obama because he’s black” makes you sound like Sarah Palin every time she talks about the “liberal elite media.” You’re being just as broad-stroking as the very woman you critique.
Just because you want to paint southern conservatives as uneducated backlash racists doesn’t mean you can just do it.
Opposition to President Obama is legitimate, and usually backed up in either ideological (tea party) or factual (fiscal conservatism) opposition, and if you blame it on racial animosity that isn’t going to change, you’re ignoring millions of potential voters, and legitimate opinions.
Are there fringe voters who won’t support a black man? Yes.
Are there groups of men who don’t vote for women?
Are there groups of women who don’t vote for men? Yes.
People like Sarah Palin because they can identify with her, she speaks their ‘language’ and has a near religious belief in America just like they do.
It’s quite simple, I suggest actually talking to a few die-hard Palin fans before calling them racists.
Conor and Om
The South is certainly not the only region in the country that contains racist voters. Nonetheless, the concentration of these voters in states like Mississippi and Arkansas is especially high. I am examining geographical trends in political behavior and in order to do so, it is difficult to avoid talking about region’s a collective political unit. With that said, I duly recognize that there are a multitude of conservatives throughout the South that embrace Obama’s blackness.
Among the GOP’s constituency of conservative White Southerners, however, there are plenty of people who do not. If the region’s animosity towards Obama and other black Democrats is merely ideological, how then has the “Solid South,” the most reliably Democratic constituency in the country, gradually evolved into just the opposite since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Why did Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy target disaffected whites who virulently opposed integration? Why did Ronald Reagan deliver his first speech as the Republican nominee in 1980 in Philadelphia Mississippi (the site of the Mississippi rights workers murders) about “states rights?”
I think Alabama’s 4th Congressional District is an incisive microcosm of the South’s aversion to Obama’s blackness. Obama garnered 23% of the vote in this district (his lowest margin in any CD), in which blacks only make up 5% of the population. The district is unique mix of rural towns, mid-major suburbs and the northernmost exurbs of Birmingham, the state’s largest city. For a black candidate like Obama, having to confront the racist attitudes of the white-flight exurbs along with the persistence of conservative attitudes in rural areas serves as a double-whammy that would help explain his poor performance in the district.
When you (Conor) talk about extremists who refuse to vote for people of various identities, you reduce race to merely a feature of one’s physical appearance that ignores the complex web of socially constructed relations that compound its physical dimension. I am not suggesting that a resident of Decatur, Alabama (a city in the aforementioned 4th CD) simply turns on their television, sees a black man running for President and decides to vote for a white candidate. Racial animus has evolved into a less explicit attitude yet you only recognize the isolated communities of outright hatred that continue to target blackness as an inferior physical feature.
Palin supporters abound within my own family. I live in a state that contains a very large constituency of Sarah Palin fans so don’t not tell me that I cannot sufficiently speak to these issues on a personal level. That kind of irresponsible condescension is beneath you.
*don’t should=do. Sorry, long day.
Tyler,
Sarah Palin is popular because she is Sarah Palin, not because Barack Obama is a black man.
So, these “socially constructed webs” don’t exist around women or men? Really? I seem to recall people asking if Sarah Palin could raise kids and be VP, if Bush was too “hot-headed.”
The Fourth Congressional District of Alabama!
I’m quite glad you singled out this one out, because it nearly proves you wrong. In 2004, President Bush won 71% of Alabama’s 4th CD. In 2008, John McCain won 76% in the same district.
So, what you’re telling me is that in an area so inflamed with “racial animus” having a black candidate only swung 5% of the vote? You’re telling us that Sarah Palin preys on this 5%?
By the way, their Congressman, Robert Aderholdt (who ran against a white man)got 75% of the vote.
So, at the very best, there is 1% of this congressional district who voted for the democratic candidate for congress, but then voted against a black man for the White House.
If that’s the big group of people who run Sarah Palin’s animus-fueled machine, you’re going to have to try a little harder to explain the hundreds of thousands of people showing up at Borders, Costco and BJs.
Sarah Palin is popular because she identifies with the small-town feel that many of these voters have. People *agree* with her. They have the same values, they have the same policy positions, the same religion, the same military families.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Need I mention that she got elected on her own, and had a 70% approval rating in her home state, where there’s never even been a black candidate?
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that gender doesn’t manifest itself beyond its physical appearance. The issue at hand is race and I have accordingly responded to your denial of racial animus as a significant factor in voter behavior.
As for your interpretation of voting behavior in the 4th CD, I will revert to the GOP’s shameful history of exploiting the region’s racial animus. Yes, Barack Obama is the first black President but he is not the only Democratic Presidential candidate that has had to deal with issues of blackness among racist voters, wherever they may be. From Nixon’s Southern strategy to Ronald Reagan’s images of “welfare queens,” Democratic candidates have always had these unfair stigmas of blackness attached to them.
This is precisely what I’m getting at by urging you to explore race beyond its simple physical dimension. The unique burdens that confront a black person like Obama do not render it absent from previous campaigns in which Republicans eagerly targeted disaffected Whites. Perhaps the Democratic Party’s nomination of a Black man and his markedly poor performance in places like northern Alabama is the culmination of South’s steady and uninterrupted decline as a Democratic bastion since the 60s.
Shall we revisit George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad? Even though Horton went by William, Bush and his campaign team deliberately changed his name to the “blacker” Willie to prey on White fears of black criminality and Michael Dukakis’ alleged connection to those characteristics. If that does not constitute racism in a political campaign then I guess it just doesn’t exist after all, does it?
We certainly cannot discount the influence of “identity” politics, whether it helps or hurts a particular candidate. Certainly there are voters who supported Sarah Palin, or, on the other side, Hillary Clinton simply because they are women, and undoubtedly there were people who voted for Obama simply because he was a black man. Just as there were people on the fringe who could not picture a black president, there were also people who could not picture a female president. There were also people who could not picture a 71 year old as president. Sexism, racism, and ageism all play into today’s electoral politics.
However, we should be wary of painting entire regions of the country into one ideological box. There is undoubtedly a small group of voters who were threatened by the fact that Obama is only half white. To say that an entire region of the country (one that includes many black voters) is not only prejudiced but acts upon that prejudice is unfair. Furthermore, an individual’s political ideology and voting patterns are frequently more complex than one issue.
It should also be noted that in your example of Alabama 4, you said that 5% of the district is black. According to your reasoning, this should mean that Obama got 5% of the vote. However, he garnered 23% of the vote. Assuming that every black person voted and voted for Obama (unlikely), this would mean at a very minimum, at least 18% of the population is, by your standard, certifiably “not racist.”
One last note: the South has certainly had its deplorable problems with race, and we cannot ignore that. However, we also cannot ignore that tremendous strides have been made with regards to race both systemically and on the individual level since the Civil Rights era.
Michelle,
I absolutely agree that we have to be very careful about discussing geographical trends in voting behavior. My analysis is meant to assess the South as its own political unit while recognizing that many, MANY people in the South do not correspond to such trends. Of course, this issue of describing geographical trends is endemic to a wide variety of political discussions. My state (Oklahoma) is accurately described as a solidly Republican state at the Presidential level. Of course, the accuracy of that description rests upon the recognition that the state contains plenty of Democrats like me and my immediate family.
I never put forth a definition of someone who is “certifiably not racist” and any attempt to extrapolate such a definition from anything I’ve written is inaccurate. I don’t believe racism is measurable and discourage any reductive method (such as the one you employ) that attempts to quantify its prevalence.
The Willie Horton ad was not racist. The REAL ad didn’t mention Horton’s name, or show his photograph, and featured 30 prisoners: 3 black, 2 Hispanic, and 25 white. Unfortunately, reproductions of this “despicable” ad have changed history.
You Said:
“”As for your interpretation of voting behavior in the 4th CD, I will revert to the GOP’s shameful history of exploiting the region’s racial animus. Yes, Barack Obama is the first black President but he is not the only Democratic Presidential candidate that has had to deal with issues of blackness among racist voters, wherever they may be. From Nixon’s Southern strategy to Ronald Reagan’s images of “welfare queens,” Democratic candidates have always had these unfair stigmas of blackness attached to them.”"
What? So what you’re doing is falling back on Nixon and Reagan to try to prove a point that Palin has something to do with racial animosity?
Let’s not revert to anything, let’s stick to the facts.
Richard Nixon is absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about the political impact of Sarah Palin.
There was no major difference between the amount of the population who voted for Bush versus those who voted for McCain-Palin (who supposedly prey on racial tension). There was a .8% difference in the number of people who voted for their white Republican congressman against a white Democratic challenger and those who voted for McCain-Palin against our first black candidate. .8%!
Sarah Palin has nothing to do with racism, racial tension or racial animus…if we want to talk about people who prey on racial tension, let’s talk about Jesse Jackson’s comments on healthcare, or when columnists call McCain just another “old white man”
Sarah Palin (keep in mind I disagree with her often) makes speeches about family values, security, energy and Christianity, yet somehow you chalk her appeal up to racial tension.
Maybe, instead of focusing on Nixon’s southern strategy (which wasn’t even created by him), you should look at what he accomplished during his presidency, as he was one of the most progressive presidents we’ve ever had with regard to civil rights.
From Wikipedia, which I think sums it up nicely:
“Civil rights
The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South.[93] Strategically, Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationist George C. Wallace and liberal Democrats, whose support of integration was alienating some Southern white Democrats. [94] He was determined to implement exactly what the courts had ordered— desegregation — but did not favor busing children, in the words of author Conrad Black, “all over the country to satisfy the capricious meddling of judges.”[95] Nixon, the Quaker, felt that racism was the greatest moral failure of the United States[96] and concentrated on the principle that the law must be color-blind: “I am convinced that while legal segregation is totally wrong, forced integration of housing or education is just as wrong.”[97]
Nixon tied desegregation to improving the quality of education[96] and enforced the law after the Supreme Court, in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education (1969), prohibited further delays. By fall of 1970, two million southern black children enrolled in newly created unitary fully integrated school districts; this meant that only 18% of Southern black children attended all-black schools, a decrease from 70% when Nixon came to office.[90] Nixon’s Cabinet Committee on Education, under the leadership of Labor Secretary George P. Shultz, quietly set up local biracial committees to assure smooth compliance without violence or political grandstanding.[98] “In this sense, Nixon was the greatest school desegregator in American history,” historian Dean Kotlowski concluded.[99] Author Conrad Black concurred: “In his singular, unsung way, Richard Nixon defanged and healed one of the potentially greatest controversies of the time.”[100] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixon’s presidential counselor, commented in 1970 “There has been more change in the structure of American public school education in the last month than in the past 100 years.”[101]
In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program in 1970.[102] Nixon also endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment after it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and went to the states for ratification as a Constitutional amendment.[103]”
People running for office say and do a lot of things to get elected, but what you should really look at is what they did in office.
Tyler-
You have narrowed your vision with your own sign waving and deafened yourself with your own shouting. Race is an integral part of politics in the US. Judging others by their race (racism) is pracrticed by the Democrats and Republicans. You villify the racial campaigning of one group and don’t see or hear it in another. Republicans “eagerly targeted disaffected Whites”… yes… and Democrats eagerly target disaffected blacks. And “The South is certainly not the only region in the country that contains racist voters”. What percentage of northern black voters voted for Obama and what for McCain? Or are you saying that only white people can be racist?
Your article above is not a logical progression of thought. The nastiness rears its head early with the “complete sentence” swipe and predicts the rest of your thoughts. But nastiness is never logical. Then you describe an atypical politician attracting disaffected voters and someone contrasting with conventional politicians and thus maintaining relevance. Are you speaking about Palin or Obama? Then you go to Palin’s appeal to rugged individualist and the racially anxious South? I get the individualism aspect but what makes her racist besides your weak connection to some racist voters in the South?
Let me get this straight. There is a backlash against Obama because he’s too leftist and can’t get anything done. There are some southerners who don’t like a black President and this is sort of like a backlash. Palin has supporters in both of these groups so, Q.E.D., she is playing to racism. Is that your premise? If it is and you want this graded anything higher than a D, you should rewrite it and submit it again next week.
Conor,
Previous Republican candidates are extremely pertinent to this discussion about Palin. By contrasting with Obama’s blackness, Palin is continuing a trend that has persisted within the GOP since the Civil Rights Movement. When you attempt to quantify racists in terms of percentages, you reduce it to a measurable feature of voter behavior. As I’ve briefly described above, identities such as race transcend any kind of quantitative method that strives to objectively measure racism. The significance of Alabama’s 4th Congressional lies in its unique composition of rural, suburban and exurban communities and its subsequent rejection of Obama. Any attempt to quantify the racism of its constituents via a comparative analysis of other 08 elections and the 2004 Presidential race ultimately asserts an oversimplified notion of race that ignores its presence outside of Obama’s elections. I know you’d much rather elicit sympathy for oppressed white males like John McCain but as millions of blacks have their blackness impugned by the likes of Sarah Palin, you’re not going to win me over anytime soon.
Yoda,
I’ll gladly take a D from anyone who puts forth such a shallow understanding of racial politics. You establish a false equivalence between whiteness and blackness that ignores decades upon decades of institutionalized racism within our political system. The racially disaffected white voter and his black counterpart are not two in the same. While the white voter longs for a bygone era of white supremacy in which his or her whiteness reigned over every sphere of society, the black voter’s disaffect is in response to the challenges of deploying one’s blackness in a white-dominated society. To suggest that such feelings of disaffect are on an equal footing is to deny this country’s history of racial oppression.
Just as an aside to this entire conversation…
I love how I can talk about historically-based trends in the West that confront individualism and escape any kind of scrutiny from yall. But whenever I dare to suggest that remnants of Jim Crow still persist in Southern voting trends, I’m all of a sudden unfair.
Bilbo Said:
“While the white voter longs for a bygone era of white supremacy in which his or her whiteness reigned over every sphere of society.”
Uhhhhh what. Are you joking? I’m a white voter, and I vote on policy thank you very much.
This article is a joke. You’re pretending racism exists where it doesn’t, stop clamoring for a cause kiddo.
I am from the south. I am not racist. I have a slight automatic preference for white people though according to a Harvard test but that doesn’t mean I am a racist. implicit.harvard.edu/implicit
Take the black-white, skin color…any of the tests on there, I dare you. If you come out having no preference, I commend you. But I took this test once in high school (in the south) and I had a slight automatic preference toward African Americans…I came to DC and it switched.
Racism is has many facets and cannot be exclusively one-sided.
Please stop writing articles about people you think that you know are going to fail. If you believe they are never going to make it then why do you give them attention.
So…no response to what I said?
Good Lord. Who started the postmodern party?
Whew…. ok, I apologize for the “higher than a D” comment. It was uncallled for. I did not equate nor relate different blocks disaffection. I equated the way the disaffection was manipulated by the two parties. Nor do I long for any by-gone era except my own childhood. Once again though, your own shouting deafens you to the point being made. I questioned and still question your premise that because Palin has some support among southern voters of whom some are racist she somehow “preys” on the south’s remaining “racial animus” or that she somehow impugns the “blackness” of people. The premise still doesn’t fly.
No one denies that racism still affects voting trends in the south. No one said that, somehow you heard it. Race affects voting across the whole country to some degree. What your commenters are saying is that Palin is not responsible for it and you have not clearly demonstrated that she “preys” on it.
Yes, she is not black. Yes, she is conservative. Yes, people believe in individualism. Yes, these people tend to like her. Yes, some people in the south don’t want a black president. Yes, a lot of these people support conservative candidates. No, Palin is not proven racist by this string of facts. Nor are all conservatives. Read and understand what I’m saying and then please tell me what I missed in your argument.
Thomas Frank? How passe. You need to read some recent works in economic history, here is a start: http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/015_04/3002
Conor pretty much destroyed your Southern argument with his analysis of the 4th congressional district. Well played!