On March 24th, I posted the observation that Obama might have trouble attracting “Republicrats,” a term that I use to refer to the descendants of 19th century New England Republicans who are now living throughout the northern section of the USA, from Massachusetts to San Francisco, because Obama was dependent on the union vote. “Republicrats don’t like unions,” I noted.
Now Michael Barone has published a survey of the Obama-Clinton primary race indicating how Obama has won counties in which “academics” dominate and how Clinton has won counties in which “Jacksonians” dominate. It turns out that the “academic” counties are precisely the same as the Pietist diaspora that spread Republicrats across the great northern section of the US.
In other words, Obama depends on the Republicrat vote. Orrin Kerr thinks that McCain will be competitive in winning this vote (see his comment on my March 24th post). I doubt it. Sure, Republicrats might like McCain’s abstract policies. But will they like the man himself? Barone notes that McCain in name, lineage, personality, vocabulary, and profession is an arch-Jacksonian — Scotch-Irish, military, rowdy, libertarian in mores, and educationally lax (i.e., near last in his class at the Naval Academy). I do not see the intellectual descendants of the Adams becoming enthusiastic about such a guy. After the Gilded Age antics of Bush II, I think that the Republicrats will, for better or for worse, gravitate towards gravitas — that is, earnest, pious, serious, New England-style Good Government.
But I’d be interested in what people think of the Barone article, which I regard as the best piece written on the Primaries so far.
Posted by Rick Hills on April 3, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Comments
If the argument is that Obama has the stylistic trappings attractive to the “Republicrats” I would agree— I fall squarely in this demographic and find Obama to be moving. I DO find myself turned off a tad by the McCain style– however, color me a factionalist, but I like to think people of the “Republicrat” fold are typically more cerebral than emotional voters. This may be the heart of Obama’s appeal, AND his weakness. He speaks our language, and we know that he isn’t our choice of candidates.
Posted by: Andy | Apr 6, 2008 10:19:16 PM
In answer to Orrin, the modern “Jacksonians” voters are, of course, Reagan Republicans. They migrated westwards from the midwest and Old Southwest — Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas — to places like Orange County, CA and AZ, and their grandchildren voted for Reagan in droves. Like Reagan (and Jackson), they had a nationalistic attitude towards foreign affairs, a suspicion of educated elites, an aggressively localistic attitude towards property in land (i.e., they loved their zoning ordinance), and a generally hostile attitude towards federal regulation.
In Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton 2001), Lisa McGirr describes Goldwater Conservativism in ways eerily similar to the Jacksonian Democracy. In particular, both movements arose in the west and based their strength on an alliance with southern whites and northeastern Catholics, exploiting a shared bitterness against a perceived eastern Yankee elite.
So, yes, McCain and Reagan both have a Jacksonian flair — but with one gigantic difference: Jackson and his “hard money” followers loathed corporate wealth — especially banking wealth — and adopted a stridently radical agrarian ideology hostile to eastern capital, especially between the Crash of 1837 and the Mexican-American War of 1848 (after which the slavery issue dominated the Democracy). The modern conservative movement made its peace with corporations. That’s a big reason for those neo-Jacksonian voters in Ohio, Michigan, and elsewhere — often loyal union guys — to be wary of Jackson’s heirs.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Apr 5, 2008 3:55:12 PM
I doubt that Old Hickory would have thought much of Ronald Reagan’s military service, which mainly consisted of acting in military films. Certainly Reagan was better known as an actor than a soldier, unlike Jackson.
Posted by: Joshua Tate | Apr 4, 2008 8:33:15 PM
Rick writes:Barone notes that McCain in name, lineage, personality, vocabulary, and profession is an arch-Jacksonian — Scotch-Irish, military, rowdy, libertarian in mores, and educationally lax (i.e., near last in his class at the Naval Academy). I do not see the intellectual descendants of the Adams becoming enthusiastic about such a guy.As described, McCain sounds a great deal like Ronald Reagan. I’m curious, Rick, did this group vote for Reagan?
Posted by: Orin Kerr | Apr 3, 2008 11:33:53 PM