"King Of The Hill" Democrats
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Matt Bai has written a piece discussing how Democrats can appeal to "King of the Hill" Democrats. As he explains:
If politicians and pundits are really so desperate to understand the values of conservative America without leaving their living rooms, then they should start setting the TiVo to record another animated sitcom, which Anderson mentions only in passing and which, despite its general policy of eschewing politics, somehow continues to offer the most subtle and complex portrayal of small-town voters on television: ''King of the Hill,'' on Fox. North Carolina's two-term Democratic governor, Mike Easley, is so obsessed with the show that he instructs his pollster to separate the state's voters into those who watch ''King of the Hill'' and those who don't so he can find out whether his arguments on social and economic issues are making sense to the sitcom's fans.For those who have somehow missed ''King of the Hill'' during its nine-year run, here's a lightning-quick primer: It revolves around a classic American everyman, the earnest Hank Hill, who sells ''propane and propane accessories'' in the small town of Arlen, Tex. Hank lives with his wife, Peggy, a substitute Spanish teacher who can't really speak Spanish, and his son, Bobby, a sensitive class clown who exhibits none of his father's manliness. (''This is a carburetor,'' Hank tells his son. ''Take it apart, put it back together; repeat until you're normal.'')
The important thing here is that Hank Hill may be a Texan, but he and his friends could live in any of the fast-developing rural and exurban areas around Columbus or Phoenix or Atlanta that are bound to become the political weathervanes of the new century. The families in Arlen buy American-made pickups, eat at chain restaurants, maniacally water their lawns and do their shopping at the huge Mega Lo Mart. This could easily be the setup for a mean parody about rural life in America, in the same vein as ''South Park,'' but ''King of the Hill,'' which was created by Mike Judge (who is the voice of Hank and who also created ''Beavis and Butt-head''), has never been so crass. The show's central theme has always been transformation -- economic, demographic and cultural. Hank embodies all the traditional conservative values of those Americans who, as Bill Clinton famously put it, ''work hard and play by the rules.'' He's a proud gun owner and a Nascar fan. When Bobby announces that he has landed a job selling soda at the track, Hank solemnly responds, ''If you weren't my son, I'd hug you.''
As Arlen becomes more built up and more diverse, however, Hank finds himself struggling to adapt to new phenomena: art galleries and yoga studios, latte-sipping parents who ask their kids to call them by their first names and encourage them to drink responsibly. The show gently pokes fun at liberal and conservative stereotypes, but the real point is not to eviscerate so much as to watch Hank struggle mightily to adapt to a world of political correctness and moral ambiguity. When Peggy tells him he'll look like a racist for snubbing his Laotian neighbor, Hank replies, ''What the hell kind of country is this where I can only hate a man if he's white?'' And yet, like a lot of the basically conservative voters you meet in rural America -- and here's where Democrats should pay close attention -- Hank never professes an explicit party loyalty, and he and his buddies who sip beer in the alley don't talk like their fellow Texan Tom DeLay. If Hank votes Republican, it's because, as a voter who cares about religious and rural values, he probably doesn't see much choice. But Hank and his neighbors resemble many independent voters, open to proposals that challenge their assumptions about the world, as long as those ideas don't come from someone who seems to disrespect what they believe.
[. . .]
Easley polls surprisingly well for a Democrat among these voters, and he says he thinks that understanding the show's viewers might resolve some of the mysteries confronting his party about the vast swaths of red on the electoral map. Easley is reasonably progressive -- he raised taxes during his first term to protect education spending -- but he's also known as a guy who cracked up a race car during a spin on a Nascar course. When the governor, a former prosecutor, prepares to make his case on a partisan issue, he likes to imagine that he's explaining his position to Hank -- an exercise that might be useful for his colleagues in Washington too. For instance, Easley told me that Hank would never support a budget like the one North Carolina's Senate recently passed, which would drop some 65,000 mostly elderly citizens from the Medicaid rolls; Hank, after all, has pitched in to support his own father, a brutish war veteran, and he would never condone a community's walking away from its ailing parents. Similarly, Hank may be a lover of the environment -- he was furious when kids trashed the local campground -- but he resents self-righteous environmentalists like the ones who forced Arlen to install those annoying low-flow toilets. Voters like Hank, if they had heard about it on the evening news, would have supported Easley's ''Clean Smokestacks'' law, which forced North Carolina's coal-powered electric plants to burn cleaner, but only because industry was a partner in the final bill, rather than its target.
Interesting. Of course, this is all a roundabout way of saying that Democrats need to know how to appeal to rural voters--which should come as little surprise to those who have witnessed the last three election cycles. But it leads one to wonder how Democrats will be able to appeal to the "King of the Hill" crowd with people like Howard Dean at the helm of the party sneering--and encouraging others to sneer--at red state voters. And considering that Hank once said of Ronald Reagan "I miss voting for that man," the Democrats have a long road to travel before the "King of the Hill" crowd will give them a serious look.
UPDATE: This post argues quite persuasively that Bai just didn't get the show. (Thanks to Ann Althouse.)
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Carl Levin to strike Bush through Feith through Edelman — Comments (15) »
"King Of The Hill" Democrats 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Note that Hank didn't even consider voting for any other party. He would rather run to Mexico than do that! Republican or nothing, that's how Hank Hill votes.
So no, I don't think he'd b fooled by a lot of Democratic "re-framing."
Also remember that Hank has extreme fondness for LBJ. Even named his dog Lady Bird.
For directing me to this story. My sense is that both Bai and Hollihan (the author of the post in your update) are partially correct. Hollihan is right to point out that Bai's calling Hank Hill an "independent" betrays either a glaring blind spot or a willingful ignorance. Hill's a Republican, not much unlike the Republicans that I encounter in day-to-day life in Indiana (I currently live in Indianapolis).
What Bai gets right, however, is that Hill is Republican without being particularly partisan or doctrinaire. He is not a "movement Republican"; he agrees with Tom DeLay on most policies but dislikes DeLay's method (and maybe the man, too); and he's socially conservative without particularly wanting his government to be socially conservative. IOW, he basically wants to be left alone and to leave others alone, which has been a policy mostly absent from the current crop of Republican leaders. Think Lugar, Voinovich, and McCain: reliable conservatives who don't always toe the party line. Reliable conservatives who drive some in the Republican party nuts because, in some senses, they are too reliable.
What to draw from Hank Hill (assuming any broad point can be drawn from a television show)? Here's my two cents: Hill represents a generally-reliable Republican who probably feels a bit alienated from the current Republican leadership and the activists who keep that leadership in power. He's the kind of Republican who, here in Indiana, votes a straight Republican ticket "except for Evan Bayh" (the moderate Democratic Senator) and maybe a local candidate or two. The Republican party can rely on such folks to support them in the national election [remember Indiana went heavily for Bush], but it can't take them for granted on every issue [remember, too, that Bayh got something close to two-thirds of the vote* despite Bush's {and Mitch Daniel's, the new Republican Governor} coat-tails]. And it is not impossible that they may even cross party lines in a national election, if the Republican party seems to have drifted too far to the right or if it seems more intent on playing politics than getting something done.
In other words, my sense is that Republicans, not Democrats, should be worried about the "Hank Hill" voter. He's the Republican Party's voter to lose -- and, in some sense, he's being lost in the current Congress. The chance of such a person rebuking the Republican party in a national election (e.g, voting for Kerry over Bush) is extremely remote. But the chance of such a voter rebuking the party in a "local" election -- e.g., voting for Easley -- is much higher.
von
*Granted, Bayh faced an extremely weak candidate, tho' this, too, is a sign of his strength. No one wanted to bear the risk of taking him on.
p.s. For the record, my liberal-Republicanism/moderate-libertarian self -- I'm a guy who was clearly a Republican in Chicago, but may very well be a Democrat in Indiana -- is not exactly in tune with the "Hank Hill" voter. I don't claim to speak for them, insofar as anyong can speak for a hypothetical group of voters ("security moms," etc.) But I do have the pleasure of knowing several "Hank Hill" style Republicans (i.e., my in laws).
You can kind of look at Hank Hill as being Republican Everyman. I think the reason why Easley and some Democrats are looking at Republican Everyman is because he's the only way they can win elections.
And I doubt LBJ would have had any more use for today's left than Hank Hill would.
about "Hank Hill voters" being as much Republicans' to lose as they are Democrats' to gain. My general sense is that these voters can be relied upon to vote either Republican or Democrat locally, but Republican nationally, for a good deal of time to come. Hey, I could be a Democrat if I lived 50 miles west of Washington instead of 10 (still voting for GOP Presidents, of course), but around here, to vote Democrat would be "falling in with the wrong crowd," not a Hank Hill crowd in the slightest.
Well, I think that today's left and LBJ would have found a great deal of common ground on "Great Society" issues.
And, I find it a bit ironic that Senator Goldwater would have found some common ground with today's left on civil liberty and religious liberty issues. :-)
For instance, Easley told me that Hank would never support a budget like the one North Carolina's Senate recently passed, which would drop some 65,000 mostly elderly citizens from the Medicaid rolls; Hank, after all, has pitched in to support his own father, a brutish war veteran, and he would never condone a community's walking away from its ailing parents.
Right because we all know that if one who supports taking care of their own parents, it naturally follows that they support the federal and State government robbing Peter to pay for Paul's parents.
McCain's a RINO. Supports gun control, campaign finance reform, and a bunch of other similar lefty ideas.

Considering that "King of the Hill" is my favorite show of all time, I've got to say that this article is dead right on the money.
On a humorous note, Hank intended to vote for George W. Bush in 2000, but when Hank met Bush at a campaign rally, Bush had a wimpy, weak handshake. Hank was having a lot of trouble deciding whether he could still vote for a candidate who had a wimpy handshake.
He also didn't consider George H.W. Bush a real Texan.