Perlstein on Will on Wallace

I’ve got all sorts of admiration for Rick Perlstein the blogger and Rick Perlstein the author, but I think he strikes the wrong note in his takedown of George Will, where he undertakes to recall and situate George Wallace (link). Will says that Wallace’s role was “giving an aggrieved minority a voice.” Near ballistic, Perlstein responds:

Of course this is nonsense: the people he was giving voice to was an aggrieved majority--e.g., white people.

[I think he means i.e., but I’ll give him that one]. He goes on to offer up a bill of particulars to show that the Wallace campaign was a stew of racist violence

Well, you know what? The Wallace campaign was a stew of racist violence. But its supporters—at least the rank and file—certainly felt that he was “giving an aggrieved minority a voice.”

And, pace Perlstein, a minority the were. Not “white people,” but a particular slice of white people—mostly lower middle class, notably urban, and mostly—and this is vital—deeply insecure, both economically and socially, teetering on the edge of downward mobility. They weren’t always good company—we’re talkin’ Archie Bunker here, or “Married with Children” (Homer Simpson is actually much too nice). Neither Perlstein nor I (nor, I suspect, George Will) want to spend a lot of time in their company. But they’ve got real fears, and they are afraid of real things. Perlstein might want to reread some critical passages of Anatol Lieven:

The 1960s and 1970s saw defeats for the culture of the White South and the Heartland which, put together, were greater than anything experienced since the Civil War. The term “Negro socio-economic revolution,” used by some authors to describe aspects of the 1960s, is overdrawn, but certainly reflects the way many Whites felt then and even to a degree feel today. Civil rights for Blacks, coupled with inner-city rioting and pressure for concessions in education and housing, terrified and infuriated large sections of the White middle classes.

--Anatol Lieven, America Right or Wrong 142 (2004)

And it’s not just that these people think that bad things are going to happen in society; they think that if they happen, then they are going to bear the cost. And on the evidence, they were right all the way around: heartland whites have been major losers over the last generation. They’ve lost economic security and social prestige. And when their betters have fiddled with the social matrix, it is they who, most often, have borne the cost.

This isn’t to excuse Will. Quite the contrary: It’s Will’s kind of condescension that feeds this insecurity and exploits it to advantage. But the way to cope with him is not to put all the Wallaceites into the hands of the Birchers and the Klansmen (though heaven knows there were enough of both). It’s to recognize them as what they are, deserving of at least as much respect as, probably a lot more than, George Will.

Personal fn.: As a newspaper reporter, I covered bits of the ’68 Wallace campaign—his handlers, as I believe I’ve said before, were about the most civil and courteous among campaign operatives. Wallace himself was a piece of business: he spilled out energy, enterprise, shrewd judgment, and not a little hate. I remember him on the tarmac at Standiford Field in Louisville, fulminating about these hippies and their funny clothes. He was wearing a Shriner fez, which I thought a nice touch.

Perlstein and the Aunt Millies

A few days ago I ran across to Rick Perlstein’s blog. I had just finished his admirable book on the Goldwater revolution and was pleased and amused to find that he had made himself the master of the sinkhole.

I don’t think I then grasped a couple of more general points; one, the blog is brand new, and two, Rick has done a dandy job of identifying a hitherto unpopulated niche in the teeming and gabbling blogosphere. In brief, he has made himself the patron saint of what he calls the “Aunt Millies” -- old-fashioned types who don’t like all this new-age nonsense (“young folks nowadays…”) but who do expect their government to do ordinary stuff like keep the e. coli out of the food chain, or fix the sinkholes.

It’s a fiendishly clever strategy. Perlstein, who knows a lot about conservatives, knows that there are lots of people who vote conservative but who are (wait for it!) pretty decent folk. They may rail and fuss about the Mess in Washington and how they want to Throw the Bums Out, but they do expect the government to do the things they do expect it to do. And who could defend a sinkhole--The National Sinkhole Association? Citizens for American-Sinkhole Friendship? The Sinkhole Advisory Council?

I don’t think I’m precisely an Aunt Millie: I spent too much time in daily newspaper journalism to have any special high regard for the common run of politicians. But I’ve seen a bit of old-fashioned good government in my day, and as the fella says, I know what I like.

Potholes and e. coli seem to be the big items on the Aunt Millie patrol so far, but Perlstein is not so limited. He is also good at, for example, trolling locals newspapers for mundane instances of defining good government down (e.g., link). And he is running a productive subspecialty in mundane lies. It’s good stuff in its own right, and it’s promising: a potential source of more good stuff not covered elsewhere. Long may you blog, Rick; I just hope it doesn’t distract you from your next book.

Dick Morris, Call Your Publisher

I wonder how soon we will be hearing from all the pundits who have been assuring us these pat several years that Hillary had a lock on it because nobody could touch her in the money race. Oh, wait...

Afterthought: Actually, I still think Obama is an empty suit--putting me more or less in the same camp with Rep. Charles Rangel (D. NY), who told Tim Russert on Sunday that he (Rangel) had encouraged Obama to run, but that he (Rangel) was sticking with "my Senator." I've been reading Rick Perlstein's riveting Before the Storm, about the Goldwater fiasco in 1964. Right now it's spring, 1964: I'm watching President Rockefeller, President Scranton, President Lodge and President (George) Romney as they strive for the honor of saving the Republic(ans) from the depradations of the Arizona cowboy. I'm still betting the Repubs wind up with Mike Huckabee and for the right odds, I'd even take a flutter for the Democrats with Bill Richardson.