EDMUND BURKEMitt Romney’s remarks suggesting that the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes are nothing but a bunch of parasites living off the public trough may have an enormous impact.
I’m not speaking about whether Romney’s remarks will prove lethal to his presidential campaign, though that may well turn out to be the case. After all, he insulted nearly half of the electorate. Voters who think that Romney was talking about them or their family members – a retired grandparent, a disabled sibling, an uncle who was laid off by his employer, a cousin stuck in a low-paying job – are likely to be unforgiving. But even if Romney’s remarks turn out to be decisive in the 2012 election, they may have an even greater impact on the nation for other reasons.
Romney’s world view – expressed so revealing in his remarks – reflects a narrative long popular in right-wing circles. According to this narrative, the country is neatly divided into responsible, productive citizens and irresponsible, shiftless moochers. I use the word “shiftless” deliberately, knowing that it’s tinged with a racist innuendo, because I fear the right-wing narrative is historically tied up with racial stereotypes, even if everyone who today buys into that narrative is not a racist. The narrative continues: Democrats cater to the parasites by promising and providing government entitlements. Even more nefariously, Democrats want to make these voters dependent on government because that solidifies their loyalty to the Democratic Party.
The narrative explains, at least in part, the mysterious hatred that so many right-wingers have for Democratic politicians. Those who subscribe to the narrative do not believe Democratic politicians hold different – but principled – views on ideology and economics. They see Democrats as cynical, unpatriotic politicians who, for self-interest, are willing to subvert the initiative, self-reliance, and virtue of their fellow Americans.
This narrative explains why cries about American exceptionalism and American decline resonate so powerfully with the right-wing. According to the narrative, America was once a unique place – a shining city on a hill – populated by a self-reliant and virtuous people. But liberals and Democrats have been subverting self-reliance and virtue in much the same way that the Roman emperors subverted the Roman Republic by giving the people bread and circuses. Some liberals and Democrats are doing this consciously and maliciously; some are fellow travelers who are going along to get along; some are well-meaning but naïve – but all are precipitating American decline.
If this narrative is paranoid, it’s the same kind of paranoia that during the Cold War led the John Birch Society to believe that many American statesmen – up to and including President Dwight D. Eisenhower – were engaged in a secret Communist conspiracy to subvert America. A key difference is that the Cold War right-wing conspiracy theory was expressed directly while today’s conspiracy theory is generally expressed through symbols and coded language.
Another key difference is that in the 1960s William F. Buckley Jr., his co-editors at National Review, Senator Barry Goldwater, and other courageous conservatives – at no little risk to their own interests – ultimately denounced the John Birch Society and declared that its conspiracy narrative was lunacy.
Mitt Romney has unintentionally done the nation a service by dragging the right-wing narrative at least partially into the light, where it can be identified and debated. To what extent does Romney’s version of the narrative jibe with reality? That discussion has already begun as news organizations and think tanks put up stories – complete with tables, bar graphs, and pie charts – about whether what Romney said was accurate. If this discussion is robust enough, its benefits may be great indeed.