A Blue Ohio: Democrats and the Blue-Collar Blues

I have been a clinical psychologist in private practice for more than two decades in southwestern Ohio, a Republican stronghold in the state that broke Democrats' hearts in 2004. Three years later, it appears that most of the "blue team" remembers Ohio only for voter fraud, but I remember how Democratic candidate John Kerry failed to emotionally connect with the blue-collar blues sufferers here--especially the younger men.

My office is a mile from the Ohio River. Across the river to the south is Kentucky, closer than Brooklyn is from Manhattan, and a short drive west takes me to Indiana. In this Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana area, union jobs that pay livable wages are vanishing, but the blue-collar group that's not disappearing is the one that Howard Dean got himself in trouble for taking seriously: guys with a pickup truck and a Confederate flag.

I know one young man who drove a pickup truck with tires twice the normal size and had a Confederate flag hanging in his pole barn. He did a major favor for a friend of mine whom he came to like, and he was shocked when I told him what the impact of the flag would be on this person who is African-American. I told him that for many African-Americans the Confederate flag is as repugnant as a swastika is for myself and most Jews. He immediately got rid of his flag to avoid being offensive, apologized, and said, "For most of my friends, the flag is not about racism but about rebellion." The rebellion can be unspecified, but mostly it is against the U.S. government. There is no safer phrase in his world than, "I love America, but I hate our government."

For this young man and his friends, there is no shame in not voting. They don't take seriously what the Democrats and the Republicans say about the issues, assuming "they are all liars who will say anything to get elected." Some older blue-collar men in my part of the world know that historically the Democrats, more than the Republicans, have thrown them an occasional bone. But the younger generation knows that the farms their daddies once owned are now upscale subdivisions, and that the plants where their daddies once worked are now vacant because of, in part, Bill Clinton and the Democrats' North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) triumph.

Over the years, I have counseled many blue-collar men after they have been laid off from factory jobs and begun to abuse alcohol, other drugs and/or their spouses. Today, I increasingly see younger men who have never held a job with a living wage. I recently talked to two such men in their mid-twenties, both unemployed and on parole for substance-abuse related offenses. Seeing no other options, they are intent on joining the military when their parole ends. Having nothing to do, they often drive around aimlessly, sometimes listening to right-wing radio. Both of these young men were Bush supporters in 2004, though neither actually voted.

One of these young men routinely repeats, "Michael Moore is a rich, liberal opportunist." But he just as routinely expresses a deep hatred for CEOs with multi-million dollar salaries. He likes U.S. history, and when we discussed anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman's plot to kill Carnegie Steel Chairman Henry Frick after Frick had reduced steel workers' wages and attempted to break the union with scabs, the young man smiled with admiration. He maintained his affection even after I told him that Goldman and Berkman were more politically left of Moore than Moore is left of Bush. Upon leaning that Berkman botched the job and only wounded Frick and served 14 years in prison, the young man chuckled and said, "Sounds like some stupid crap that I would have gotten into."

Many of these pickup-truck driving young men, at least in my experience, are increasingly depressed, bored, angry, and frightened. They use their fair share of psychiatric drugs as well as alcohol and pot to take the edge off of their pain. The "growth jobs" in Ohio and throughout most of America are cashiers, janitors, clerks, servers, and security guards. Meanwhile, the "growth diversions" to the pain and boredom of low-paying, meaningless work are (in addition to alcohol and psychotropic drugs) casinos, lotteries, and all-you-can-eat troughs.

Despite distractions and diversions, insecurity and anxiety remain powerful, and many of these young men are vitalized by someone absent of apparent doubts--someone blindly, passionately in love with America. The subtext of exactly why a politician is in love with America doesn't appear to matter. In the case of George W. Bush, it could well have been, "Where else but America can a spoiled brat, substance-abusing, business failure whose own mother expected nothing of him get elected president?" Whatever Bush's subtext, he was able to project far more of that "in love with America" feeling than Kerry. Film clips of Kerry leading the Vietnam Veterans Against the War showed Kerry's words criticizing U.S. government policy. The pickup-truck community is certainly OK with criticizing the U.S. government, but Kerry's pained eyes expressed unhappiness about America. While it may have been his most genuine personal moment, sadly, it did not play well. "I love America, but I hate our government" is what they want to see, hear, and feel.

These pickup-truck driving young men are also bored and want to be entertained. Unfortunately for the blue team, Kerry in his presidential run was one more bore. The first rule of entertainment is capturing attention, and the second rule is holding attention, often accomplished through surprise. It is difficult to take your eyes off of Bush's arrogant swagger and smirk, and there's drama whenever he is asked an unscripted question--there's always the possibility of an incredibly nonsensical response. While most of these young men don't like Bill Clinton, they agree that he is entertaining. How can you take your eyes off of an Elvis impersonator with a Jerry Springer-show sex life who was president of the United States? They admit to me that, in terms of taking their minds off of their troubles, Clinton's antics were almost as good as Jeff Foxworthy and the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.

These young men are also angry, and a politician must be able to make them feel good about their rage. Bush made them feel good not so much by whom he attacked but by the fact that he seems to enjoy attacking. Kerry blew his big opportunity to connect with their rage when he could not even get genuinely pissed off at the Swift-Boat hit men aimed at destroying him.

When it comes to voting for either the blue or red corporate teams, I routinely don't. However, I did vote for Kerry. At the time, I justified my action by the calculation that a few less lives might be lost, both here and in Iraq, with the blue team's brand of corporate feudalism. Now that Democrats can't blame people like me for their 2004 defeat, perhaps they will confront themselves. That can go two ways: They can become more Machiavellian than the Republicans and select a demagogue who exploits blue-collar despair. Or they can select someone who connects with this despair and who also actually takes democracy seriously--but can that be done by any corporate team?

Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and author of Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007). brucelevine.net

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, gumburbit really isn't 'all that', in
some ways, well, in a lot of ways, I mean,
they do keep people working where they might
not otherwise have jobs and stuff, but there's
other things where they just don't really seem
like they're quite on top of it. I'd give two
areas as immediate examples, the border, and
the highways. We've really only had those freeways for what, 40+ years, and I can't
speak for how they all look, but some of the
ones I've traveled in the last several years
sure seemed like they had wagon ruts from the
overweight trucks etc. So, border not being
patrolled, freeways not being fixed, oh, and
the budget apparently not being balanced, oh,
and this war that goes on and on and on and...
well, eventually, it'll ball itself up,
because with the interest on the debt, there's
no way in hell they'll ever pay it off unless
they chop, hack, and slash spending...so we'll
be using euros for currency and listening to
our global CEO, prince Al, tell us how to
run our fiefdoms...but, whatever...as long
as I get my personal servant-bot and my Perrier
on time, you won't hear me complain! LOL

[secondedition]

I disagree with your summarization of the election of 2004. Senator Kerry's loss had a lot to do with fear- real and manufactured- by the Bush operatives and help from the media. His loss had to do with the Iraq War and people being concerned about "changing horses in mid-stream". And some people may have questioned his service to this country and considered that in voting against him. But, his loss had little to do with Senator Kerry not connecting with male blue collar workers. As a matter of fact, Mr. Kerry generated more enthusiasm and hope in 2004, than I see taking place today among all of our candidates.
As for the Swift Boaters, Senator Kerry did challenge them-through his statements and through his surrogates. Unfortunately, the VP candidate at the time didn't do his job very well. The truth about the senator service was out there for all too easily find and read. I say, shame on the media for ignoring it and riding the Bush train of lies and smears. Senator Kerry, as the presidential candidate was suppose to be above the pettiness of all of these attacks. In my opinion, if he would have behaved like the foaming at the mouth attack dog that some people expected of him, he would have lost the respect of many Americans and lost the election in great numbers. As it turned out, he almost won, if not for fraud and disenfranchisement. I have to wonder why so called Democrats continue to praise the efforts of the Swift Boaters, by elevating their imagined importance.

[beachmom]

Thanks for a thought provoking post on these men you got to know. A lot of what you describe is what I call the American Idolization of our elections. Sometimes I wish we could go back to print only, especially since someone like Abraham Lincoln wouldn't get elected based on the criteria you named. I am not sure people feel the same way now as they did then. The country is so much worse off as a result of that second Bush term, maybe going for the "entertaining/loser/full of rage" candidate will no longer be in fashion. I would much rather have a president who was so boring -- as in running the country so well -- that I barely would need to notice him/her on the TV. I think Kerry would have been a great president, but I took the time to read the letters he sent home from Vietnam as well as some of his other writings -- that was the best way to get to know him. He is indeed a facinating American character, and it's pretty obvious that he loves his country; otherwise, he wouldn't have agonized so much over both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

[TommyMcCarthy]

I would hope our national leaders might have more important things to do than be entertaining for your clients. Thats what WWF is for...good/evil...heroes/villans.... opera for the masses...........tm