Jack’s comment on the thread down a ways returned me to a subject Ive spent a lot of time thinking about. It’s probably not really appropriate for a Vermont blog, but for now, it’s the only blog I really have access to, so I’m gonna go for it. The comment, in regards to John Edwards, was:
I agree with everything Edwards says, or close enough. Still, there's something about the way he presents himself. Remember when Carter was running for president and the caricature was of this guy in overalls with a gigantic smile? All through this video there were these flickers of a smile that put me off. I guess it's kind of like I thought in 2004: he seems a bit too shiny to appeal to people.
Whether he was aware when he wrote it or not, I believe Jack’s comment has cross-cultural overtones. The psychology of the South is complicated and doesn’t fit easily into soundbites. But it useful – even important – to understand it, given the impact the south has on our nation’s politics.
Clichéd as it sounds, reading some Faulkner can give you a basis on which to build on, but it hardly gives you a picture of the modern-day south (and when I'm speaking of the south – I'm speaking of the one I grew up in culturally, which is the white south). Still, the last line of Absalom, Absalom provides some extraordinary insight, and I wish I could find the exact quote. After regaling his northern college roommate with the tales of his family and background, the focal character is told by his roommate that he understands him now – that he (the focal character) actually despises the south. The focal character, a seemingly proud southerner, is thunderstruck by this, and the book ends with him almost sputtering in response, insisting that no – he doesn’t hate the south… he really doesn’t.
(Now I really hope I’m not totally misremembering that… it has been a while)
As is often the case with individuals, a seemingly overabundance of pride can often be the flip side of an inferiority complex, and the resulting bipolar dichotomy that presents only causes more deep-seeded problems. Such is the case with the collective psyche of the South. It really wasn’t that long ago that Southerners lost a war for independence, and then had it piled on through what amounted to a corrupt occupation of “carpetbaggers” by the victorious force. This perceived colonization, the resultant corruption and the economic collapse of the post-plantation era (while the industrial north grew) fed the action-reaction dynamic which created the Klan in much the same way we see terrorism spring from Arab communities who feel a comparable dynamic in their own countries.
But that’s only the beginning. The Klan was (and is) a moral evil – and it was a southern moral evil. One that seduced people throughout southern civic infrastructures. Coming to terms with that moral evil that was a product of their own culture was (and is) no easy task. Anger, rejection, denial all come with that – but in acceptence, there is also shame, and that shame feeds that original dysfunctional dynamic of the superiority/inferiority dichotomy. In confronting the ugly racist in their midst and in themselves (during the original Klan era, and again in the civil rights era), southerners made a liberational step forward, but in some ways deepened the collective neurosis that led to the Klan to begin with.
This is why southerners often seem to collectively vote against their own self-interest. There is extraordinary poverty and corporate corruption in the south, but southerners continue to promote the worst sort of politicians into positions of power. The state of the southern consciousness, with all this baggage, is both more susceptible to the suggestions that “the other” is to blame (and subconsciously, that they don’t need to feel the shame or guilt they’re not sure how to manage) – even though “the other” (be they blacks, Jews, gays, Catholics, etc) are generally every bit the victims they are – usually more so, as that vulnerability makes them appealing targets.
Putting these political kleptocrats into power deepens the problem further by making the conditions on the ground worse due to GOP neglect, but also by perpetuating the insidious laissez-faire mantra that if you’re poor, it’s your own fault. That you’re lazy and no good, unworthy of help, and if you weren’t you’d obviously be rich already. The need to offset this piling on to the pre-existing inferiority dynamic is profound, and it drives substance abuse, domestic violence – you name it.
It also accounts for much of the appeal of evangelical Protestantism in the area. Evangelicalism not only gives you a higher purpose and the promise of reward, as all religions do, it gives you the “born again” dynamic of re-inventing yourself. It is the 12 step program all rolled up into one passionate experience, and comes bundled with a community of like-minded people. Still, such catharsis therapy is a quick fix, and the problem remains, but now – not only do the opportunities for blaming others remain (especially given the monochromatic character and anti-gay rhetoric of evangelical churches), there is also an opportunity to externalize that self-loathing by dumping onto the backs of those who have not been “born again” as you and your new community have been.
It’s all very, very ugly to look at from within , as well as from without, as – like the history of the Middle East – it forces non-southerners to confront the historical and interpersonal role they’ve played in perpetuating this unsustainable and destructive situation. And there’s no easy fix. Economic equality, education, pro-active social programs, and individuals both inside and outside the south moving outside their comfort zone to look at themselves and interact respectfully with each other as individuals is the only way out. It’s a frustrating way that takes generations upon generations.
As a side effect, southern activists are often the last people who can tell you how to appeal to “the southern voter.” Southern progressives (and there are many) have that inferiority complex hardwired too, and as a result, feel the need to set themselves apart from their fellow southerners by dumping some of the trappings, almost pleading to their northern counterparts that they’re just like them, and passing that advice along to politicians from other regions. I remember asking Howard Dean when he was just starting his presidential campaign what he was doing to reach southern voters, and he responded that he didn’t need to do anything special, because southerners were just like everybody else and responded to the same things. I have no doubt that he received that advice from supportive southern progressives who find it downright therapeutic to believe.
So how does this apply to southern politicians and their “veneers?”
There’s another side effect of the inferiority/superiority bipolarity dynamic – one that takes longer but increases steadily – depression. With low-grade depression comes apathy and a sense of futility.
With that in mind, take a look at the voter turnout rates across the country and you’ll find the lowest turnout is in the south. Sometimes the difference is quite dramatic.
Many have, at some level, given up. They expect nothing from their candidates, who they long ago concluded were all crooks – but in a deeper and more profound way than people in other parts of the country have come to believe that. To large extent, a candidate can win an election, just by getting people’s attention. When I was a young Kentuckian, millionaire Democrat Wallace Wilkinson defied political logic by winning the Governor’s race in what was essentially a vanity campaign – simply because he said he would institute a lottery. This got enough people’s attention that he squeezed out a few more votes, took the primary, and then the state. What were his other stances? Who knew? Who cared? Because they’re all a bunch of crooks.
It’s this dynamic of rock-bottom expectations that has encouraged a culture of crappy acting from politicians. They’re terrible at sounding sincere, but nobody expects them to be sincere, so they get elected – and they then decide that it was because they fooled people into thinking they’re sincere. Politicians learn from successful politicians, and before you know it – everybody’s got the saccharine smile and cheesy veneer.
Now Bill Clinton got people’s attention because he was actually good. He actually seemed sincere, and many in the south had never seen a politician who felt as though he wasn’t simply going through the motions.
John Edwards too, I believe is sincere, but he has two things working against him in regards to his presentation: one, he is not as talented a presenter as Bill Clinton, which wouldn’t be a problem were it not for number two – that he comes from a political tradition that says you HAVE to put on the smile. You HAVE to do the cheesy grin. If you don’t, you’re going to lose.
Now I actually think Edwards isn’t so bad at it, but I suspect I’m viewing him through a hardwired, southern cultural lens that you Yankees aren’t. One thing I will say is that others are far worse – and I think his superior performance to many of his southern political peers is due to sincerity, rather than acting skills. That’s not to say that I think he’s a saint, but neither do I think he’s making up these opinions wholecloth.
Anyway, my point is that with a southern, white politician, you’re going to get the “veneer.” For the moment, it’s a hardwired cultural mannerism that may look odd or distatsteful from up here, but it comes with the package – at least for now.
Hopefully not too much longer, though, because I'm pretty sick of the cheesy grin thing myself. It's time has passed…
