Loading...
Loading...
Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Matt Malone, S.J.January 19, 2016

From 1951 to 1969 the State of Florida was represented in the U.S. Senate by George A. Smathers, a Miami attorney and future used car salesman who is best remembered for his close friendships with two U.S. presidents: John F. Kennedy, with whom he would occasionally raise hell; and Richard Nixon, to whom he sold his Key Biscayne home—what would become Nixon’s Southern White House.

My favorite story about the otherwise nondescript Mr. Smathers is largely apocryphal. But the fact that no one ever substantiated the story didn’t stop Time from publishing it, nor has it stopped thousands of political junkies from retelling it. It involves the so-called Redneck Speech, which Mr. Smathers was said to have delivered to uneducated audiences during the 1950 election:

“Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert,” Mr. Smathers supposedly said. “Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law; he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy.”

Clever, huh? Perhaps too clever to be true. I thought of the story, though, when I learned that Senator Ted Cruz had accused Donald Trump of having “New York values.” To be honest, I live and work in New York and I don’t know what that means. But I can tell you that I have never heard a New Yorker talk in a seriously derisive manner about “Peoria values.”

Whatever it means, however, there is a definite “us” and “them” at work here: Peoria and Midland are the “real” America; New York and San Francisco are not. Perhaps this is what is meant when presidential aspirants say that “we” are going to “take our country back.” Perhaps they are suggesting that Peoria should reclaim from New York what is rightly theirs? Maybe that’s not what is meant, but then just who is the “our” in “we are going to take our country back?” And from whom are they (and or we) taking it back?

Such is the logic of demagogues, which would be as laughable as Smather’s Redneck Speech if it weren’t for the fact that in the current political climate, this kind of politicking is akin to smoking near a tinderbox. The electorate is anxious and afraid; their thirst for some sense of control is so great that they’ll drink the sand just because some would-be Moses tells them it’s water. This shows in one of the more disturbing trends in recent polling: the growing authoritarian sensibilities of voters.

Matthew MacWilliams of the University of Massachusetts found that “education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables…were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.”

I note for the record that the G.O.P. does not have a monopoly on tactical demagoguery. As David Brooks recently remarked on the PBS NewsHour, “the big question” in both parties is “how deep is the disgust in the country. It’s the tectonic question. There is a level of anger which is not only there, but building. And that could sweep away all the establishment candidates.”

As scary as it seems, Mr. Brooks is right. Then again, he’s one of the smartest homo sapiens I know.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Richard Booth
9 years 4 months ago
Lest anyone be confused by the word "authoritarianism," it does not share identity with "authority." The former is demanded by a specific type of personality disorder, whereas the latter is most often bestowed. Studies on the authoritarian personality have been in the literature for decades. Many of its correlates are known empirically. A few examples are: the "isms" (e.g., racism, ethnocentrism), homophobia, dismissiveness of others' views and of contradictory information, harsh protectiveness of one's power, narcissism, egocentrism. And, there are many, many more. If interested, one should see Adorno's work in this area, which is seminal, as well as the later research. Since the data attributed by the author to MacWilliams make clear that authoritarianism is preferred by Republicans as the most significant trait for a leader, we can infer that they may well vote for a person who is racist, punitive, persuasive, overly suspicious, at times impulsive, and homophobic, among other things. Personally, I doubt we need a leader of this type ever, but particularly at a time when the world is so unstable and there are so many problems to be solved rationally.

The latest from america

Paola Ugaz, a Peruvian journalist who helped expose the abuse committed by leaders of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, gives Pope Leo XIV a stole made of alpaca wool, during the pope's meeting with members of the media May 12, 2025, in the Paul VI Audience Hall at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
Pope Leo offered a heartening message for a global media that has endured a pretty awful year.
Kevin ClarkeMay 23, 2025
If you think our enthusiasm for our basketball team was intense, just wait until you see our support for Pope Leo XIV.
Jack DoolinMay 23, 2025
“I don’t think he’s the kind of man who sends coded messages,” Cardinal Michael Czerny says in this exclusive interview with Gerard O’Connell.
Gerard O’ConnellMay 23, 2025
First-grade students finish an assignment at St. Ambrose Catholic School in Tucson, Ariz., in this 2014 photo. Arizona has one of the nation’s strongest school choice programs, with vouchers available to every child in the state. (CNS file photo/Nancy Wiechec)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling denying state funds to a Catholic charter school in Oklahoma. What should American Catholics be asking about public funding for school choice?
Beth BlaufussMay 23, 2025