Just Like “Rich Men North of Richmond,” the GOP Debate Started with Nods to Economic Strife and Ended in a Storm of Extremism
Discover more from Arc Digital
Just Like “Rich Men North of Richmond,” the GOP Debate Started with Nods to Economic Strife and Ended in a Storm of Extremism
Conspiracy theory and identity politics remain the engines of Trumpism
The GOP debate kicked off on Wednesday night with a clip from Oliver Anthony’s viral country hit, “Rich Men North of Richmond.” Following this, the first question asked went to Ron DeSantis, with Martha MacCallum asking, “Why is this song striking such a nerve in this country right now?”
For a brief period, the debate followed the course of the song itself, with candidates detailing their objections to Bidenomics and generally bemoaning the state of the average American’s wallet. Nikki Haley even scored some audience approval by laying the nation’s mounting debt at the feet of both Republicans and Democrats, driving her point home with the clearly pre-prepared line, “I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House.”
Most of the candidates touched on the economy to one degree or another, and representatives of Team Normal like Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum were happy to carry on in an old school (if perhaps totally irrelevant) vein of fiscal conservatism and inflation hawkishness.
But, much like the song currently dominating the charts on the back of right-wing enthusiasm, the debate did not take long to devolve into a display of the feverish and conspiratorial politics that have become the norm for the Trump-era GOP.
I am one of many to observe that “Rich Men North of Richmond” only sounds like a traditional blue collar country anthem if you fail to listen all of the way through. By the end, we are treated to lyrics about obese welfare queens and a play on words about Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious child trafficking and the government’s supposed indifference to child abuse. And by the end of the GOP debate, we were treated to a litany of culture war froth and frankly bizarre outbursts of MAGA identity politics.
The border issue was particularly fertile ground for this. Here, DeSantis was in his element. He executed the essential America First two-step of promising not to send American soldiers to Ukraine—a thing that is simply not happening or going to happen—but rather to send them in full force to the U.S.-Mexico border. There, DeSantis gloried in the prospect of waging a hot war on “drug smugglers,” whom he promised to “leave stone cold dead.” The legality and morality of these policies are clearly suspect, but the gleeful violence of DeSantis’s border fantasy is an area where he offers tidy continuity with Trump.
Hunter Biden’s misdeeds also featured heavily. Even Chris Christie, whose candidacy is packaged as a kamikaze mission to topple Trump, dedicated a long answer to the stain he feels Joe Biden’s younger son has left on the current administration. Christie accused the Department of Justice of having “walked away” from holding Hunter accountable and asserted that he would have Hunter locked away “for 10 years.”
But, lastly, I want to linger on Vivek Ramaswamy’s closing statement, a true cavalcade of populist invective and right-wing nuttery. He’s delivered this list of points before, even on the trail. But at the end of a caffeinated performance that oscillated between Silicon Valley overconfidence and ambulance chaser sociopathy, the unvarnished extremism of his views were clearer than ever. His points, which he summarized on X post-debate, went as follows: “1. God is real. 2. There are two genders. 3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels. 4. Reverse racism is racism. 5. An open border is no border. 6. Parents determine the education of their children. 7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind. 8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty. 9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four. 10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.”
Some of these are entirely banal and unobjectionable. However, scattered in here are declarations with unmistakable ties to the current hard right. I’ve spent some time here at Arc Digital discussing this movement’s obsession with parents’ rights and the use of this concept by extremist groups like Moms for Liberty to advance a harshly anti-LGBTQ agenda.
Other observers noted the relationship between Vivek’s belief that “the nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind” and the deep ties between fascist notions of power and testimonial family hierarchies. Sarah Flourence posted a quotation from Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works, a book I also find very useful in this moment, that reads “In a fascist society, the leader is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family.” Vivek’s forceful defense of parents’ rights and depiction of the traditional family as a form of governance strikes me as inescapably authoritarian.
I don’t object to his declaration of personal faith, and I agree that capitalism has often been an engine for lifting people out of poverty—though, social intervention has also been key here. His border views reflect the hardline anti-migrant stance of his fellow candidates. And the Constitution, while imperfect, has been a profoundly important document in the course of human freedom. On that last point, however, Vivek might want to revisit the history of American independence since he credited the Constitution (ratified in 1787) with America’s triumph in the Revolutionary War (fought from 1775-1783).
In all, while aspects of this first debate might have felt reminiscent of an older, duller Republican Party, one would have to ignore whole segments to come away with the belief that extremism, conspiracy theory, and Trumpism writ large aren’t still dominant. Most of the candidates showed this to be true. Ramaswamy, the night’s breakout star and Trump-like heel of the show, made that clearer than anyone else.
 | A guest post by
|
Just Like “Rich Men North of Richmond,” the GOP Debate Started with Nods to Economic Strife and Ended in a Storm of Extremism
In response to Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 points, I offer the following:
1) God, if real, is unknowable to humans except through speculation by other humans written into religious texts, and personal revelations of uncertain origins claimed by religious leaders and their followers.
2) There are two biological sexes, but intersex persons and persons with gender dysphoria are real, and should not be punished or abused because they are atypical.
3) Human flourishing is reliant on fossil fuels, but that must change quickly to avoid destroying the planet through global warming.
4) Reverse racism is racism, and so is systemic racism and white supremacy, which are bigger problems effecting more people.
5) An open border is a permeable border defining legal jurisdiction - every state, county, city, and town in the US has open borders. Opening or closing national borders is a political question not answerable with a simple slogan.
6) Parents determine the education of their children when families home school - public schools are run by the government, religious schools are run by religions, and private schools are run by their agreed upon bylaws and/or charters. Parents can disagree with teaching standards and contradict them at home.
7) The nuclear family is not a form of governance at all. The nuclear family is not democratic because children do not get to outvote their parents on any important issues. Governance by means of nuclear families would be anarchy leading to a feudal system governed by the strongest family.
8) Capitalism lifts people up from poverty, and casts others into poverty when it’s creative destruction favors new industries over old ones or moves industries to other countries to lower labor costs.
9) There are three branches of the US government.
10) The US Constitution as amended after the Civil War, is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history. Before that, it allowed bondage slavery to flourish and expand into new states, and regarded non-whites as subhuman and women as the property of men. Of course, the hearts of men are often harder to amend than The Constitution.
He said he composed his in about 15 minutes. I am not as smart as he is, so I took about 30 minutes to compose my response. I am not certain of the points in my rebuttal since I was going off the top of my head, and they are not the product of deep thought and concentration. However, I believe that my points are more accurate, and certainly less misleading than his. No, I don’t plan to run for President.
Control over a county’s borders does not equal a closed border. Whether to open it, close it, or partially open are political questions. I agree that we should be able to control our borders, but how far to close it is a separate question because we need immigrants for high skilled and low skilled jobs.
I don’t understand systemic racism to include all systems at all times. But there has clearly been systemic racism targeting African Americans in housing, lending, and employment, which led to affirmative action (deemed reverse racism) as a partial remedy. Nobody should be coerced or pressured into transgenderism. However, no adult who chooses it should be prohibited by the government from receiving medical treatment to transition. For children, families and doctors should decide what treatment, if any, is appropriate with a strong presumption against irreversible procedures that weakens as a person approaches 18.
Globalism leading to the loss of jobs to other countries would require government intervention to stop, not government intervention to start. Capitalism is a race to the bottom for employees because cheaper labor can be found where there are no laws protecting labor and/ or the environment.
To my way of thinking, families are not “governed.” The nuclear family is great, and generally benefits society, but they are not any sort of model for governing the nation, and may be less beneficial than extended families. Moreover, oppressive nuclear families, and extended families, are harmful to family members and to society because they turn out damaged children and spouses. So, Ramaswamy’s line about nuclear really makes no sense. As noted above, most of his points sound catchy, but do not withstand casual attention, much less scrutiny. But, as a demagogue and narcissist, he doesn’t care - sounding good is good enough for a lot of voters.
Your guess about Constitutional racism was incorrect. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as viewing African Americans as property, not men protected by the Constitution, in Plessy v. Ferguson. Slaves had no rights under the Constitution and were mere chattel to white men wherever white men chose to have slavery. And, the 3/5th clause gave slave states an electoral advantage over northern states until the Civil War. While the Northern states generally opposed slavery, they also did not want whites and blacks intermingling and kept them separate through housing restrictions, etc. it took a Civil War and Constitutional Amendments to change the Constitutional view of African Americans, but the Amendment were subverted by the undermining of Reconstruction, Black Codes, and Jim Crow.
Common law viewed women as the property of men throughout the 1700s and 1800’s. Women received the right to vote by Constitutional amendment after African Americans did, also by Constitutional amendment. The Eugenics movement in 20th century America put white males at the top, and all other races ( and women) below. White Supremacy continues to be a very serious problem - see Charlottesville - though it has diminished over time.