While you are tearing up the miles in NYC for the cause of breast cancer, I wanted to share some thoughts with our Kitchen Table readers about something that has been profoundly disturbing to me throughout this election season. When did the lowest common denominator become the ceiling instead of the floor? When did we decide that Joe Six Pack was to be the standard bearer for the American people? And who in the world is Joe Six Pack?
I've got to admit that I was completely unfamiliar with that term. When I hear "six pack," in a colloquial sense, I think about serious abdominal muscles...but maybe that's just me. Rarely do I think about a six pack of beer when I hear the term "six pack." It's only been recently that I've heard that expression used to describe every day people, your average Jane or John Doe. When I hear "Joe Six Pack," I picture an overweight man, sitting in front of the television, nursing his domestic six pack of beer, while wearing a stained t-shirt, perhaps with lazy basset hound at his feet. A more tasteful description of Joe Six Pack is that he is a blue collar worker, perhaps a plumber or an auto mechanic. He is just your average working guy and a patriotic American, who lives on Main Street in Middle America.
The problem that I have with either the stereotypical or the more careful use of this term is that it polarizes those outside of "Joe Six Pack world" as less American, less patriotic, and less in touch of the realities of the working class. And it reminds us, in clear terms, that the political appeal to "Joe" is much more important than the appeal to "Jane." And, finally, it reinforces the notion that "Joe" is a code word for white, disaffected, male voter.
Not everyone lives on Main Street in Middle America, but are the folks living in the South Bronx or in South Compton the audience for a political campaign? And if not, why not? Because Joe Six Pack does not live there; he's a white man living in Spokane, Washington or Boise, Idaho. And Joe Six Pack is not the cleaning woman or the nurse's aide. He's a man, presumably the head of his household on Main Street. Working women, single mothers, domestic workers are not the target of this political campaign; their very presence is a stark reminder that the notion of Joe Six Pack, as sole breadwinner and present husband and father, is a political fallacy. And Joe Six Pack is at least nominally a Christian, so Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other group of religious believers are somehow less American.
To glorify Joe Six Pack as the only genuine American, as the real moral and political core of our country, is to invalidate the experiences of all the other folks in America, folks who are people of color, women, non-Christians, city dwellers, or educated. When only Joe Six Pack becomes the target audience for political commercials, tax cuts, legislation, and economic incentives, we ignore the fact that most of this nation does not fit this profile. And finally, we ignore the fact that despite the rhetoric, none of our current political candidates currently fit the Joe Six Pack mode, although some of them have come from humble beginnings. When Sarah Palin indicated that her retirement portfolio lost $20,000 in one week (which means there was much more in there to begin with), she lost her street credentials as a Joe Six Pack wife.
My name is not Joe. I don't drink beer. I don't live on Main Street in Small Town America. I have more than a high school education. I am black. I am a woman. And I vote.
Yolanda
Posts
7 comments:
Excellent commentary! Thank you.
I agree with all that you said.
I would add that I find routine appeals to the "middle class" upsetting, disappointing, alienating, classist and racist.
I understand that many many U.S. Americans view/define themselves as middle class despite their income status.
What I mean by that is that many people whose income level places them more accurately in the economic category of working class view themselves as middle class -- and for that reason, it is more politically effective for politicians to design their rhetoric so that they address "the middle class" because (I believe) most people in the U.S. will think that politicians are speaking directly to them *about* their particular concerns.
I don't propose to tell anyone how to self-define culturally or economically -- if a person believes they are middle class and identifies as such I would never dispute that.
I am deeply disturbed, however, by most politicians' -- and particularly, the 2008 presidential candidates' -- decisions to *not* clearly define the issues they discuss and problems they say they plan to address as issues and problems that directly, profoundly, and fundamentally impact the lives of poor and working-class people -- a disproportionate number of whom are people of color.
When politicians speak to and for "Joe-Six-Pack" and the "middle class" -- coded terns for white U.S. Americans -- they justify that which many white people believe: i.e., that "they" are most fundamentally "American" -- that "they" are the "true Americans," the folk who work hard, made this country what it is today (i.e., the perfect emblem of democracy for the entire world, particularly the stereotypically backward, savage brown and black part of the world -- and the religiously fanatical brown part of the world).
It is "they" -- the "hardworking (white) Americans" that *deserve* to be the focus of all mainstream political discussions -- it is their needs that matter most.
I know that Obama has to exercise a more complex measure of savvy because he is the first, viable black male candidate for president. I get that -- but I still don't like that Joe Biden, during the Vice Presidential debate, had to remind white U.S. Americans that he was going to keep "a close watch" on Obama -- he'd be in the room when Obama was making all his presidential decisions (I'm paraphrasing here). I get that racist whites (i.e., whites that don't *know" they are personally racist) may need to hear Biden say he will be the wise, white father figure watching "his boy" -- "the boy" -- so that "negro" doesn't get out a hand and send white U.S. America on a path to destruction (Hello! What's "W" been up to for 8 years???) -- I get that.
One of the many things I appreciate most about Obama and his campaign is the many many times he has risen above -- set the bar higher. He could've chosen to define himself as the "raceless" candidate -- but he didn't. He confronted the "race issue" -- he confronted white racism. He attempted to dignify Reverend Wright and validate their relationship in his so-called"race speech."
Obama has inspired an intensity of hope in me I haven't felt since I was in high school -- because it was the post-high school years that stripped me of naive idealism when I began to *really* see the U.S. and understand its history.
I would love to see the Obama campaign do less exploiting of white racism -- less overt coddling of white voters -- for example, by seriously downplaying (and I think I'm being kind by using the word "downplaying") his support of Affirmative Action, and by referring to the "gang bangers" and "welfare mothers" in the congregation of his former church, and by speaking directly to black fathers in his Father's Day speech -- and thus, making an "in group" conversation, so accessible to a white public.
In conclusion:) Thank you for your post:)
This was a great piece. I wonder, though, how much of the focus on "Joe Six-Pack" is because politicians believe that middle class, white, patriarchically structured households are more authentically "American." I'm willing to bet that a lot of the reason politicians spend so much time appealing to these voters is that they are up for grabs in a way that poorer minority voters really aren't. I mean, how much success would McCain really have if he targeted low-income inner-city black women? That demographic, if it votes at all, is solidly in the Obama camp and will probably stay that way no matter what kind of message McCain sends them. "Joe Six-Pack" voters, however, might be more likely to respond to the McCain campaign's attention.
One thing that has struck me consistently about Ms. Palin is her anachronistic way of expressing herself. Her use of 'Joe Six-Pack' reflects a very dated view of the America that she and John McCain seek to lead, one that excludes more citizens than it includes. Yet another reason to vote for Mr. Obama, in my opinion.
I'd like to expand a little bit on jerry and rmyoun06's ideas.
I agree, rmyoun06, that seeking out this demographic is a political choice. Because really, what are we going to do if Obama doesn't talk to us, vote for McCain? Maybe McKinney, but... that's another post. I think that there is also an unconscious element to this rhetorical targeting as well.
I agree that when most politicians think of "Americans" they almost always have a picture of "Joe Sixpack" in their mind. Therefore, they target campaign messages and debate rhetoric at this demographic, which in turn perpetuates the notion that this American minority is our best representative.
I wonder though, how many Americans that don't fit the "Joe Sixpack" mold think of him as well as the quintessential American? Have women, people of color, queer folks, non-Christians, the educated, the wine-drinking, internalized the isms they've experienced because of their social identities to consider themselves less American for their non-dominant (in terms of power, not of numbers) characteristics? I would argue, many. Because just as these targeted messages breathe life to politician's obscured notions about Americans, they also fuel the fire in the minds of American voters.
What are the implications of such internalized oppression? Is it that "low-income inner-city black women" are less likely to go to the polls come election day? Maybe these messages help explain why these groups are less likely to run for office? Or perhaps, as Dr. Pierce noted so eloquently a little while back, "the insidiousness of oppression is that it replicates itself among the oppressed" and that we (the non-Joe Sixpacks of America) feel isolated and lack solidarity (especially when non-dominant traits aren't present throughout families, e.g. GLBTQ people) and keep us from realizing that we are Americans and that the notion of Joe Sixpack is as dated as the romanticized lie of the American Farm.
I wonder if this narrow view of the "average" American is a result of looking at the demographics at the RNC...as we blogged through the convention, it was like watching an America that use to be, but was no longer. Of course, you can also argue that *because* the RNC so alienated anyone who did not fit the Joe Six Pack mode, it was no surprise to see the homogenous audience gathered. Either way, somebody is out of touch that America is a much different, and I would argue, much more vibrant, diverse, and amazing place because of our diversity.
becky, I think your point about how this message gets internalized is absolutely correct, at least in some cases. I'm the son of an Arab Muslim immigrant who was raised by a single mother in Kentucky. Because of that, I had a lot of trouble self-identifying as an "American" growing up, despite the fact that culturally I've got way, way more in common with most Americans than I do with anyone else. As a result, it wasn't until I got a little older and made a conscious decision to embrace America as home that I felt comfortable being politically active. I can't speak for low income inner city black women, but, extrapolating from my own experience, it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that their relatively low levels of political engagement are substantially a result of failing to conform to the model of standard "Americanness" that politicians use as a tool.
Ultimately, this method of specifically tailoring a pitch to white, middle class, patriarchal suburban voters will be really dangerous for the Republican party. As those voters dwindle as a share of the US population, the Republicans will have to find a way to reach out to other identity groups to stay viable as a national party. While focusing on this demographic might win them votes in the short term, in the longer term it will tend to alienate other demographics that Republicans must become competitive with if they want to keep winning national elections.
As an example, check out Hispanic voters. In a certain sense, one would expect Hispanics to be natural Republicans; after all, they tend as a whole to be socially conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage, and they tend to attend church much more often than average (which is a good indicator of Republicanism). However, in a retarded short-term effort to appeal to "Joe Six Pack" on immigration, the Republicans have managed to totally alienate Hispanic voters for a whole generation. This will be really problematic for Republicans in 30 years.
Good article. I always thought that the descriptive "Joe Six-Pack" was ridiculous, but then, I find many pop culture idoms and expressions equally ridiculous. What about, "Jane Six-Pack?" Don't women drink beer too? In any event, colloquialisms like "Joe Six-Pack" have the same impact as stereotypes in general; a bad one. Not that Plain needs to make herself look any worse, but she is accomplishing that every time she uses such banter. For the record, I do live in the South Bronx and none of the candidates direct their campaigns towards me. I don't think the South Bronx corsses their minds at all. There are more sterotypes about the South Bronx than there are jokes about Palin.
Daniel
Post a Comment