Neil makes an observation about Sen. George Allen and the recent news of his real heritage, and draws more of a parallel than he thinks to the Texas gubernatorial race.
Ever since Mark Schmitt first told me about him, George Allen has always seemed to me like a man with a deep understanding of exactly one thing — the power of a good-ol-boy image in winning political office. From the football metaphors to the chewing tobacco to the cowboy boots, he’s built himself exactly the kind of persona that’s been winning elections in America from William Henry Harrison’s “Log Cabin” campaign of 1840 to Bush’s two recent election victories. Of course, all of these identities were largely fabricated. Harrison was born on a plantation, not in a log cabin. Bush was a president’s son and a Senator’s grandson who only bought his ranch in 1999 as a backdrop for his presidential campaign. Allen himself was born and raised in California, not in the rural South.
Allen’s awareness of the importance of his persona, I think, is what explains Allen’s furious response to the bizarre question that he was asked in this week’s debate with Jim Webb. Confronted with his Jewish ancestry, Allen angrily attacked the questioner for “making aspersions” about his ethnic background.
I don’t see this as evidence that Allen was ashamed to be descended from Tunisian Jews. What Allen saw in the question, I think, was a threat to his carefully cultivated good-ol-boy persona. Jewish stereotypes and rural Southern stereotypes are about as far apart as any pair of stereotypes in America, and it’s hard to fit them together in any sort of natural-looking way.
Friedman, of course, has successfully pulled off the Jewish Cowboy persona for decades. Unlike the others Neil cites, I don’t doubt that this aspect of Friedman – the man and the candidate – is genuine. You’d have to believe that his whole life was gearing up for this campaign to think otherwise, and whatever else I may say about Friedman, I definitely do not think that is the case.
But I do think that all the news about Friedman’s questionable attitudes on race and his defiant response to what’s been brought up has served to deflate his image as a progressive hero. Certainly, based on comments I’m getting here and seeing at BOR, Friedman still has appeal to many voters, including some who may not have taken him seriously before. What I think is the case, though, is that when all is said and done he’ll have lost support among nominal Democrats, who if they haven’t been sucked completely into his reality distortion field must by now realize that he really doesn’t share their values. Indeed, it’s pretty clear he holds a lot of those folks in contempt. I just hope that now there’s enough national interest in this race to generate more frequent polling, so we can try to measure some of the effects of all this.
For what it’s worth, I saw Friedman perform at the Laff Stop on West Gray maybe 15 years ago or so. Funny show, as much music as stand-up comedy. He told a joke that I still consider to be one of the funnies I’ve ever heard. To the best of my recollection, there was nothing that I found offensive. Certainly, I don’t remember him telling any jokes of the “n***** eggs” variety. I don’t recall anything like that from the books of his I’ve read, either. Make of that what you will. In a way, I’m as surprised by these recent events as anyone.
But again, this isn’t about his past. It’s about his present, and the past is being held up to shine light on what he’s said and done lately. Remember:
Among the more recent Friedman comments was one broadcast on CNBC, as reported by Clay Robison in his column for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News. Friedman said he would put sexual predators in prison and “make them listen to a Negro talking to himself.” At the time, Friedman said he used that phrase in a novel to describe a junkie and that he wasn’t racist but couldn’t be “politically correct” and write a novel.
More recently, Friedman sparked anger among groups including the NAACP by saying many of the Hurricane Katrina evacuees who have stayed in Houston are “crackheads and thugs.” Most who were evacuated to Texas are black.
And also his statements about the border, some of which are less recent but still a part of this campaign. Once is a mistake. Twice is a habit. Many times stretching over multiple years is an ingrained personality trait. If Friedman is tired of people saying all these bad things about him, he could try understanding why people don’t like the bad things he’s been saying about them. It’s really not that hard, and the fact that he refuses to says a lot more to me than any ambiguously tasteful joke ever will.
UPDATE: And the editorial pages turn against Friedman: in Austin, in Lufkin, in Dallas, and in San Antonio (thanks to BOR for linkage).
Hmm, non-pc candidate shoots mouth off stupidly, bloggers and editorial boards descend.
The script to this was pretty easy to see coming.
It’s a little surprising to see all of the verbiage being wasted on a loser who is, as you’ve pointed out and I have pointed out for some time, impossible to take seriously.
It’s like he’s finally been able to achieve being taken seriously by “serious people” instead of simply being dismissed as the clownish buffoon he has been all along.
Either some folks must still view him as a threat, or there’s just not much to write about right now.
Kevin, you yourself once said:
Not taking the candidate seriously, and not taking the canmpaign seriously, as you well know, are two different things. If you’re saying Friedman’s candidacy doesn’t need to be addressed, then you’re not watching the same governor’s race that I am.
And please, enough with the suggestions about what topics are and are not worthy of attention. Someone who’s blogged about every single light rail accident is in no position to tell anyone else what to write about.
Haha, I love reading you Kuff. And as an aside, thanks for kind words and linkage.