The Demise of the Far-Right Conservative White Guy

It’s not that bad, guys.

As a liberal, I admit to taking perverse pleasure—the German word is “schadenfreude”—in watching the FOX News Network turn into Jonestown when President Obama was projected the winner of the presidential election. After Ohio and Virginia went blue, it seemed plausible that Karl Rove, whose super-PAC was on the hook for $300 million, might start throwing his own feces at the cameras.

However, while I was giggling into my sleeve and watching to see if Brit Hume’s hair would actually move, history was happening in my home state of New Hampshire.

On Tuesday, Nov. 6, with the Democratic governor-elect Maggie Hassan defeating the GOP candidate Ovid Lamontagne—no known relation to the singer—and the newly elected Congresswomen Anne Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter, both Democrats, beating the Republican incumbents Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta, respectively, New Hampshire became the first state in this country’s history to have a female governor and all female representatives in Congress—Democrat Jean Shaheen and Republican Kelly Ayotte are the senators.

It’s worth noting that for much of 20th century, New Hampshire was the only red state stronghold on the liberal east coast. It is a state that still has one of the most conservative newspapers in the country, the painfully written and egregiously edited Union Leader, and had someone written an editorial for that rag twenty years ago stating that in 2012 New Hampshire would enjoy all-female congressional representation, the gun-toting good ole’ boys with their pick-up trucks and obdurate white politics would have laughed that person all the way back to the Massachusetts border. It would have seemed the stuff that a campy 50s sci-fi movie was based on.

But sorry, boys, all barbecues must come to an end.

Elections in a democracy are typically good indicators of the public’s pulse, and they seldom occur in a vacuum. Much has already been remarked in the media about why the epic flip-flopper and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney fell significantly short of making Obama a one-term president. However, I’m not interested in punditry and analysis from the talking heads.

What became clear, not only in New Hampshire, but nationally—except in the South where they’re still fighting The Civil War—is that the heyday of the far-right conservative white guy is in a decline, and unless they’re willing to part with some of their archaic 50s social paradigms and stop exalting Reagan and trickle-down economic theories that cater to the rich conservative white guys they hope to become, this species will soon be extinct.

This will be a tough pill for the far-right conservative white guy to swallow. If there’s one demographic that embodies stubbornness and resistance to a changing dynamic, it’s the tone-deaf and paranoid far-right conservative white guy, who wants his wife to serve him, the gays to stay away, and the minorities to quit picking his pockets.

Unfortunate as it is for him—and we’re seeing this in New Hampshire, a one-time bastion for the far-right conservative white guy—most women no longer have time to bake cookies for his kids after school and give him a hand-job at night while he is smoking his pipe and watching the news in the den. The gay community is here to stay and, hopefully, soon will have the same right to be miserable in their marriages as the far-right conservative white guy, and no one is picking their pockets by making them pay taxes.

To the far-right conservative white guy: look ahead, and you will see that you have one of three options. You can get with the times and accept the fact that demographics in America are changing, and stop with the pouting and paranoia. Newsflash: the nostalgia you’re chasing never really existed.

You could also try rallying the South to secede from the Union for a second time and move there. It’ll be a far-right conservative white guy utopia—guns and no taxes or gays getting married. Perhaps you can even readopt the Confederate Constitution, and President Obama will be considered a mere three-fifths of person.

Or you can join Jonestown and drink the Kool-Aid with the rest of the FOX News crew. In the meantime, watch out for errant Karl Rove poop.


Read more:

Trust Me, I’m Lying: Interview With Ryan Holiday: Chuck Ross interviews a self-admitted media manipulator.

Images from White People Mourning Romney/Tumblr

About Nathan Graziano

Nathan Graziano lives in Manchester, New Hampshire. He is the author of three collections of poetry---Not So Profound (Green Bean Press, 2003), Teaching Metaphors (Sunnyoutside Press, 2007) and After the Honeymoon (Sunnyoutside Press, 2009)—a collection of short stories, Frostbite (GBP, 2002), and several chapbooks of fiction and poetry. A chapbook of short prose pieces titled Hangover Breakfasts was recently published by Bottle of Smoke Press this fall. For more information, visit his website at NathanGraziano,com.


  1. From the looks of the pic the “far right” is defined by mainstream Republicanism. I suppose it’s not atypical to portray that which one can see as the worst manifestation of the “other” around. After, Hillary Clinton is a feminist NAZI, right? Whew.

  2. If you can’t see how similar this article is to the crap spewed by Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk- you’re part of the problem.

  3. Hank Vandenburgh says:

    Here’s what’s wrong with the white guy discourse. Especially when it’s directed at working class or rural men. It’s racist (yes, Virginia you can be racist toward whites.) It’s sexist (it’s directed at men.) And it’s classist (ever wonder who does a lot of the work yuppies think they’re too good to do? Much of the military service? Puts food on the table in many areas of the US? – it’s white men, at least some of the time.) There is no sensible category called white males. There are rich one percenters who are about half females and half males, true.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Don’t you know that its ok to be racist, sexist and elitiest against white males. You can call me honky, whiteboy or any name you want and its ok. You can give my job to a woman who will go out on maternity leave and not come back, even if I had intended to stay in the job for the next 30 years non stop or at least until they shipped my job to China. Its ok, its all ok. Because I am just a whiteboy and whatever you to a whiteboy is ok, because just maybe my great, great, great grand uncle may have beena member of the Ku Klux Klan and even if I have contributed 10% of my annual income every year to the United Negro College fund, the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference or any number of African-American organizatrions whose mission it is to advance African – Americans. You can do anything to me. I walk around backwards with my hands firmly clasping my ankles, because I get what I deserve. Isn’t that right.

  4. PastorofMuppets says:

    I think I liked this column better when it was written in 1992, after Clinton won.
    Or after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress.
    Or in 2008, when Obama won the first time.

  5. Hank Vandenburgh says:

    Thought that was a no-no here.

  6. What a relief to know that Nathan agrees the most important color in America remains…green.

    • I am not Nathan, I am Bill. My favorite color is blue. Not sure what his favorite color is.

      • Thars a title in there sir! “I am not Nathan, I am Bill.”

        I’ll have my peeps submit (posthumously) MY crappy transcript of a poor shredded, abused boy’s life to you. There will be the failed-christian version and the failed mortal’s version. Guess which one they will send to you? We’ll make a killing!

        I just won’t be able to attend the ALA Annual Conf to sign promos.

  7. Sad that a place like this puts down men. Article after article we read how society doesn’t understand the complexity of the male yet here we are relishing in the downfall of a segment of males in our society. In a society where we should be respecting and learning from people of ages gone by, an article is posted mocking them.

    It should also be noted that the so called “far right” is not limited to men, there are countless women at their side.

    I guess the idea of “accepting” people for who they are, what they believe goes only as far as those beliefs are similar to your own. And to say that conservatism is limited to whites is an insult as well to non-whites.

    • And for many like this author, its not just about marginalizing the absurdly broad category “White Conservative Men.” Its about vilifying all the imagery and connotations surrounding what they think the CWM is all about.

      Some like author-Nathan speak of generalized negatives like lynch-mobs, gay-hating, bible thumpers who hunt polar bears after beating some baby seals. The CWM is the new Jew in this Nazi-like regime thought process.

      We’ve reached that point where pulling Ward Cleaver out of the station-wagon and beating him Reginald Denny-style is chique and now peer-expected. They think this sad economy, destruction of the middle-class and trampling upon the CWM’s values is exactly their dream-come-true; as Mr Greene said – “its a PAR-TAY.”

      Maybe one of them would have the man-guts to itemize what they think the CWM is all about, rather than this boring, limp-wristed slap-and-run.

    • But people like Nathan are working toward a crescendo exactly like China’s cultural revolution, where someone who just looked intelectual due to his eye-glasses would be murdered without cause.

      “Conservative White Men.” General enough to murder without cause.

  8. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Your eulogy of the conservative white man is premature. It reminds me of the predictions of another contributor to this blog who heralded the demise of Rush Limbaugh after his imprudent remarks regarding Sandra Fluke. I seem to recall this particular blogger predicted Rush would lose market share and ultimately go the way of Don Imus, Bob Grant and otherconservative radio personalities. But it did not happen. Rush enjoys the following of a huge audience. Why? Because his conservative message resonates with a substantial segament of the electorate. Don’t celebrate yet. Obama is not going to get a free ride in his second term.

  9. courage the cowardly dog says:

    What goes around, comes around. Don’t gloat too much. 58 million Americans agreed with Romney’s vision of America. The most certain thing about American politics is that the pendulum swings both ways and it will swing back to the right, hopefully you are not in the way when it does. It is just this kind of insult that tears this country apart. Yes we believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, we believe men and women should compliment each other with their respective strengths, not compete with one another, we believe in hard work, not hand outs, we believe in American exceptionalism, we believe in the second Amendment and we unapologetically believe in God and our right to believe in God is supported by the First Amendment. The House is still Republican and we are a force to reckoned with. The liberal agenda must first get through the House. So be kind, because when your side is on the losing end, you will want kindness from right. Like I said, what goes around, comes around.

    • João Lucas says:

      You mean the kindness your kind showed during the Bush years? Calling liberals America-haters, that kindness? Attacking anyone who opposed the Iraq War? THAT KINDNESS? Yes, what goes around comes around. And that is PRECISELY why we get to gloat!

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Excuse me, it was the left that mercilessly attacked George W. Bush. Lampooning the President at every turn. Sadaam Hussein may not have had WMD’s, but he was an extremely dangerous despot in an unstable area of the world that threatened if not the US directly, certainly our strongest ally in the region, Israel. You may disagree with Bush’s policies, but the left launched personal attacks on him that were viewed abroad as less than full support for the what we were trying to accomplish in Iraq. So let’s continue the circle. Liberals gloat now, but the right will have its turn. If liberals truely are the better way, then show it. Seek to unite and tear apart. The author doesn’t seek to reach out to the other side, he seeks to herald the demise of the conservative right. Had Romney won, the conservatives I know had intended to reach out to liberals and help them understand our viewpoint. So far what we have seen from the left is repudiation. That will not unite the country. But it is my belief that liberals really don’t care about this country, so what has followed really is what I expected.

        • You don’t have to look past this site alone to see how conservatives are viewed. Even so called Christians do their fair share of attacking .

        • João Lucas says:

          Your belief is the belief of the kind of person alluded to in the text. Good thing they will gradually count for less and less.

    • Yes, karma goes around and comes around and there is a pendulum effect in politics. I support any and all attempts to have civil and honest debate about issues that impact all of us as a nation. The trouble most on the left have with the values you stated isn’t that you shouldn’t have those values or that those aren’t valid values, it’s the imposition of those values on others. Not everyone wants to marry a heterosexual partner and everyone has the right to determine gender roles for themselves in their own families. Everyone has the right to freedom of and from religion and I’ve never met a liberal who thought otherwise. One person’s “hand-out” is another person’s hand up and out of poverty (I’m not going into institutionalized disadvantages of people of color and the poor). Liberals value hard work as much as conservatives do and to imply otherwise is insulting and serves to shut down debate about how we can solve our problems. I won’t touch “American Exceptionalism” because the meaning of the term has been in transition ever since some have decided it was a good cudgel to try and make Obama appear somehow un-American and other. I would venture to say most liberals support the 2nd Amendment and a majority of Americans support sensible gun control.

      The problem we have right now is largely a problem with the political discourse. The conservative white guy (and everyone who gets their news from the conservative media entertainment complex), for a whole host of reasons, has retreated to an alternate reality. Unfortunately, that alternate reality has not only damaged the discourse but it has harmed our democracy. In order to have a functioning democracy, we need an engaged and informed citizenry. We need BOTH sides.

      I would be thrilled to see a balanced and reality-based debate about all the issues we face as a nation. How can we raise the level of discourse so we can live up to our history as Americans? We have work to do.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        We have work to do.

        Olita, yes indeed we do. I really don’t believe that liberals understand the viewpoint of conservatives. For instance, marriage. Conservatives view marriage in the context of raising children. While there certainly are childless marriages, in the conservative viewpoint the purpose of marriage to raise a family that includes children. It is scientifically undisputed that the ideal model for raising children is the traditional one of one female mother and one male father. Do successful non traditional families exist(I know I will be getting a slew of anecdotal evidence of successful non-traditional family structures). Yes, they do, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Conservatives believe that our public policy has undermined the traditional family, which as a society we have an interest in promoting. To award non-traditional family structures with the same rights and privileges of traditional family structures undermines the specialness of the traditional families and disincentivises people from entering into traditional family relationships thereby leaving our children to be raised in less than an ideal environment. Our public policy should also seek to promote the growth of our citizenry and therefore as a matter of policy we should promote those relationships that reproduce. Homosexual relationships will never produce a new life. Only a heterosexual relationships can do that. Any child raised in a homosexual household may very well someday wonder about who his real biological mother/father was and why she/he would not want to have raised him/her. The psychological consequences to a child so situated are incalcuable. That can be said of anybody who is adopted by a heterosexual couple as well, but it is helluva alot easier for a heterosexual couple to represent themselves as a child’s parents than it is for a homosexual couple. Conservaties seek to make it policy for our government to promote the formation of families that provide the best environment for raising children in, not just an acceptable one. As far as abortion is concerned, I think we can all agree government has a duty to protect life– your life, my life and even the lives of all those liberals out there. So the question becomes, when doesthe life government has a duty to protect begin? Many see this as a religious quesion. But is it really? I mean we know that an unfertilzed egg is not life nor is the sperm that fertilizes it. But when the sperm fertiizes that egg the fertilized egg contains all the dna needed to develop into a living breathing functioning human being and that fertilized egg will continue to grow and develop for a life time. So when does the duty of government to protect that life begin? If you don’t start at conception, then where do you start? I believe conservatives err on the side of caution and begin at conception. I want to address the remarks made by the idiot Missouri Republican Senatorial Candidate and his twin in Indiana–Murdoch. Clearly when a woman is raped, it is tragic, horrendous, but for my opposition to the death penalty, I would want all rapists executed. But what if the rape victim is impregnated by the rapist– and that can happen notwithstanding the Missouri idiot’s belief that it can’t — but the child conceived is also innocent– in some respects he is a victim too. If the child is aborted the only person getting the death penalty is the one least capable of defending himself. The rapist gets to live, but the product of his rape doesn’t? What kind of logic is that? This will not make my fiscal conservative brethen happy, but I would compensate the mother until she gives birth and can put the child up for adoption. The rapist would be indebted to the government until all the money that went to the mother was paid off and if that meant for the rest of his life then so be it. Conservatives are good people who love this country. They are often serving in the military or are veterans. Yes they are God fearing and feel constrained to publicly express their love of God by liberal forces. Conservative values are good values and they will prevail in my belief, but if the liberals seek their demise, they may very well also achieve the demise of this great country, which i fear is their goal anyway. Convince me my fear is unwarranted.

        • D.R. Bartlette says:

          Actually, scientifically speaking, the ideal situation for raising healthy, well-adjusted children is a *large, extended family* and a child-centric outer culture. The nuclear family model is a very new invention in human history, and it seems clear it’s not perfect.
          I am happy to see that you do have compassion for others. That is what the liberal/progressive worldview is based on, not the laws of one holy book or another, but on COMPASSION. Pure and simple.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            Large extended families have their roots in the nuclear family. The nuclear family has been diminished by gay marriage, feminism, sexual freedom, birth control, abortion thereby diminishing the “large extended family”. These liberal notions of progressive thinking.

            I have never met a conservative that wasn’t compassionate. The difference between liberal compassion and conservative compassion is that a liberal will take a fish from a large commercial fisherman and give it to a hungry man who doesn’t know how to fish feeding him for the day, a conservative will leave the large commercial fisherman to sell his fish at the highest price and teach the hungry man who doesn’t know how to fish how to fish allowing him someday to compete against the large commercial fisherman causing him to lower his price on fish thereby all to afford it and all to eat well. Conservative compassion is better for everyone.

    • YouSoSpecial says:

      Agreed, it’s not old white men who are becoming politically marginalized. It’s social conservatism. Your belief in “the sanctity of marriage” is a religious issue, not a civil one, and you are free to have a sanctified marriage. And your belief that “men and women should compliment each other with their respective strengths, not compete with one another” is fine… for your home. As is your belief in your god. Those are inarguably your rights. But the existing and growing majority of the country doesn’t think your rights extend to imposing those social constructs and religious beliefs on us.

      Rewards for hard work, social safety nets, American exceptionalism, the Second Amendment – these are all good subjects for political discourse. And I hope that conservatives continue to represent their views on them in the political arena. We are all better off having a multi-party political system. But I do not see how any group or coalition – whatever gender or color – attempting to use political means to impose purely religious or outdated social restrictions on an unwilling majority can succeed.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        My belief in the sanctity of marriage is not a religious issue, it is for the purpose of promoting the best environment for raising children, which as a society we have an interest in doing for the stability and success of society. I do not seek to impose my belief in God on anybody, but I do expect, as does the Constituion, that you will respect my right to worship. I believe a society guided by the principles Jesus taught is a better society and those principles can be followed without invoking God or Jesus. The job of Conservatives is to convince the “unwilling”, majority or otherwise, that the best way for society as a whole is the way of conservative values.

        • YouSoSpecial says:

          We seem to be in complete agreement.

          I agree marriage is good for children. That’s one of the reasons why we should extend its benefits to all families. Sanctification of marriage – making it holy and sacred – is something that religions do. They are welcome to keep doing it, and I don’t expect religions to perform or accept marriages they don’t think of as consistent with their religious guidelines. As noted previously, you having the kind of gender roles you like in your home and practicing your religion are inarguably your rights. And the Golden Rule is an excellent basis for a society.

          So what is it you see as your job to convince me of?

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            When I say the sanctity of marriage I mean the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. If you read a prior post of mine I explain why that has proven to be the ideal marital model for raising children. While everything else may be “adequate”, it is not ideal and as a society we should strive for the best, especially when it comes to our children. Our public policy should reflect our reach for the ideal and not promote anything that does not do that. Christians do not hate homosexuals. As has been said many a time, it is not the sinner, but the sin. When the seed is spilled, it should be spilled in the context of a life creating and life nuturing environment, not purely for recreational or non-committed purpsoses. From your post, I think you at least see a narrowing of the gap between conservatives and liberals and to whatever extent we can narrow that gap is a good thing. I don’t agree with conservatives who are not willing to reach out, but in as much as liberals apparently won this election I believer it is incumbent on the victor to initiate reaching out to the other side and the way I see it this article does the exact opposite.

            • YouSoSpecial says:

              Your statement that “our public policy should reflect our reach for the ideal and not promote anything that does not do that” implies that we should outlaw divorce, among other things. I propose that rather than prohibiting certain groups from accessing those policies that serve the ideal, we should promote and extend the opportunity and access to those positive benefits more widely. Perhaps that’s the essential difference in our positions.

              Your comments in other posts about undermining traditional marriage and families were all made during the Proposition 8 trial. The transcripts present a fascinating study in the anthropology of marriage and I highly recommend reading them. Here’s a link to them: Blankenhorn’s testimony on day 12 of the Perry trial is particularly enlightening.

              You seem like a reasonable fellow and a respectful commentor. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in an informed and reasoned discussion about finding common ground among liberals and conservatives. And again, we are agreement that labeling and marginalizing conservative white men doesn’t serve that ideal very well.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                I don’t think we should outlaw divorce, but I do think we should not make it so easy. I would also require a sort of “pre-cana” requirement on those seeking to marry (absent the religious aspects of that), in other words, no Las Vegas style marriages where the couple knows each other for a couple of hours before marrying. I would also, of course, would only allow marriages between one man and one woman. A marriage is a life time contract and people make life long decisions based on the representations made in advance of entering into that contract and in reliance of those representations. Because one side finds the marriage not going so well, they shouldn’t be allowed to bail without taking steps to cure the defects in the marriage. Many of our societal problems can be traced to unstable and dysfunctional families which are often rooted in ill advised marital decisions. We have to stop it not create new ways to screw up kids.

  10. Jeff, quit being disingenuous. The slave states wanted slaves counted in order to increase the size of their various congressional delegations, without actually having to you know, represent the slaves in any way whatsoever.

  11. Hank Vandenburgh says:

    I’m a six year Army veteran (from the sixties,) and have mostly voted Dem. What’s more, I was an enlisted man, not an officer. I found the article obnoxious. For one thing, it’s sexist.

  12. Jeff Rogers says:

    This “3/5 of a person” insult always aggravates me, because it means you don’t understand what the whole Three-Fifths Compromise meant. Slave states wanted the slave counted as A WHOLE PERSON, so they would get more votes. Northern states wanted the slave to NOT BE COUNTED AS A PERSON AT ALL, because only land-owners voted so counting the slave as a person and added a large population to states that were pro-slavery. If you’re going to insult the south, you could at least be educated about it and quit perpetuating an alarmingly wrong misconception.

    • Guys, he’s just saying Obama would be 3/5ths of a person. Regardless of the fact that the North benefitted from the 3/5 equation, its really still a bad thing. See? Stop nit picking.

      • It’s not nitpicking, it’s history. If someone has written that the US entered WWII because China bombed Guam they’d look like a fool.

        3/5ths of a person has no mening outside of its meaning in the constitution.

    • The three-fifths compromise was over how much the South would get to count their slaves for representation in Congress, not some abstract metaphysical statement about what proportion of a “person” a black person constituted. And the fact is that the South (the slaveowners) wanted them counted as full persons for representation, while the North wanted them counted not at all.

      You fail history forevar!

  13. John Anderson says:

    “And overall Obama still lost white women. The president captured only 42 percent of the white women’s vote, Romney captured 56 percent of it. So, white women actually were an area of strength for Romney.”

    For everyone thinking that it’s the demise of white MALES.

  14. Loved the column. I want to do more writing myself. I echoed some of the same ideas in something I wrote yesterday. If you like it, give it a share:

  15. I must admit that I take a certain amount glee from watching this election backfire in Republican and conservatives faces. They spent four years campaigning against President Obama, calling him everything but the one word too politically volatile to call him, yet despite their best efforts he not only won re-election, but he ironically won by the very margin Republicans swore Romney would win by. How can you not enjoy that?

    However, what I enjoy most is the delicious irony (if I may use that phrase) of watching liberals relish the marginalization of a group of people. Here we have progressive liberals, people supposedly oh so concerned with preventing marginalization, tripping over themselves in masturbatory ecstasy at the thought that white people, particularly poor, working-class white men, will no longer have an active, viable voice in the political debate. For the last week the liberal refrain has been, “Yay! Those poor white men votes won’t matter anymore!”

    How fortunate that I am not allied to either political movements. I get to enjoy the stupidity of both sides.

  16. And the picture or the room full of elderly “white-guys…” You see the VFW hats they are wearing? Its fkg VETERANS DAY, and this header picture pisses on them.

    I challenge you Nathan: Explain to me how this abuse of heros helps you to integrate anyone worth having on your side!

    VERY bad form all around here.

    • Plenty of veterans are not white men. Plenty of veterans are not conservative. Plenty of veterans support gay marriage, women’s rights, and other progressive social policies. Nathan is not abusing veterans, he’s explaining to the GOP what they currently seem incapable of admitting to themselves: that it’s time to get with the program.

      By the way, I am a military veteran (9 years flying search-and-rescue helicopters in the Navy, with two combat-time deployments aboard aircraft carriers) and I was in no way offended by the article.

  17. Divisive gloating is so immature, as is the generalizing use of “guns, gays and barbecues.” Its weak.

    Stanky old cliches are the best you can come up with? Try discussing SUBSTANCE! Try illustrating substantial change that will occur with the regime held.

    Only weak character individuals would see such a grand victory as little more than an opportunity to stab a downed opponent.

    Sure! Revel in your victory! But if all you can come up with in reasoning is that the corps stinks, I hope you don’t represent the collectives on the left (but I fear you do).

    “Character” wins without cruelty and arrogance. Brats gloat! Brats kick the dead. Character would not put an image of a vet with a flag on the header, or a picture of a father comforting an upset child.

    Nathan! You’ll never find integration or melding by this method:

    ***To the far-right conservative white guy: look ahead, and you will see that you have one of three options. You can get with the times and accept the fact that demographics in America are changing, and stop with the pouting and paranoia. Newsflash: the nostalgia you’re chasing never really existed.

    You could also try rallying the South to secede from the Union for a second time and move there. It’ll be a far-right conservative white guy utopia—guns and no taxes or gays getting married. Perhaps you can even readopt the Confederate Constitution, and President Obama will be considered a mere three-fifths of person.

    Or you can join Jonestown and drink the Kool-Aid with the rest of the FOX News crew. In the meantime, watch out for errant Karl Rove poop.***

    Though its clear Nathan; you have no inent upon integrating nor welcoming the demographic that you so clearly hate. Go ahead and jump to conclusions about me. I don’t care if you get ME wrong, but you sound like a bitter and angry person even after a huge victory.

    • Oh, the irony. The ad banners at the top of my page are all about ending hate. Guess the algorithms haven’t figured out I’m a white guy, and so must be a hater.

  18. Question to the editors- how does an article like this support or align with the stated mission of the GMP? Someone made the choice to publish it.

    I’m a white, conservative, southern, gun owning, religious man. My wife and I donate a considerable amount of money and resources to our community. In the coming months we are donating a very nice piano to our kid’s school. I could sell it- God knows I could use an extra $2000, but the piano at school has dead keys and sounds awful. We also volunteer many hours of our time (approximately 120 hours between the two of us over the past month). I’m beginning to question why I read or participate here. Its beginning to be patently obvious that according to the GMP’s editorial opinion religious people, conservative people, white people and often men themselves cannot be considered “good.”

    To the author- as for demise…you might want to take that suggestion of learning a little more basic US history. Jimmy Carter won the state of Texas back in 76. How that tide turned…

  19. While i really enjoy the substance of your article, i take major issue with the one line “except in the South where they’re still fighting The Civil War.” I’m a queer feminist woman who voted straight democrat, and i was born in Georgia and raised in North Carolina. To write off the entire South as stuck in the Civil War is to entirely not recognize the strides we have made – and will continue to make – in terms of human rights. Yes, the legal track record is not perfect. Amendment One’s passing in NC just this past May is evidence enough of that, as was the electoral college votes going for Romney and a tremendously conservative governor, Pat McCrory. But more than anything, claiming the entire South is still stuck in the Civil War eradicates my voice, as a woman who believes in reproductive rights and marriage equality and that President Obama should remain in office. It makes me feel that all the hard work i did to campaign and advocate for change was worthless. It lumps me in as a statistically probable “conservative white guy.” How are we, as a region, meant to change if the rhetoric we use when talking about the socio-political makeup of the South doesn’t?

    • Well, maybe if y’all got together and lynched a few million white men, then the smug northern liberals here could take your region seriously.

  20. Not buying it says:

    I find the the title of this article insulting, shallow, lacking editorial integrity & honesty at the seem time truly representative of everything wrong with political views or ideologies & the misguided people who believe it’s a blood sport instead of different methodology of improvement of our society & government for us all & by the way I voted for Obama based on what is best for the country as I see it, not because I hate Romney or the political right who I vote for in the past for the same reasons i voted for Obama which is again what I think is best for the country not because I hated Democrats.

    Shame on you, Sir.

    • Not buying it says:

      By the way I am not necessarily a white guy conservative or otherwise.

      • If you are there is certainly nothing wrong with being white, male or conservative.

      • Of course you are not. The “old, white guy” stereotype is the liberal way of demagouging conservatives. Once the Republicans freed the slaves, the Democrats eventually figured out that the only way they could keep them on the plantation is to buy their votes.
        They have done that with every demographic: every brown person is an immigrant, unless they are black, in which case they are poor, and women are simply a bunch of uteri walking around. Gays, disabled, union member, whatever you are, the Democrats know how to buy your vote.

        But, to be a conservative, you just have to want to live as freely as possible, with the opportunity to succeed.

        That message does not always sell well.


  21. John Anderson says:

    “New Hampshire became the first state in this country’s history to have a female governor and all female representatives in Congress”

    Cool, according to progressives, it should be the first state without crime or violence. The poor, old, and disabled should be well taken care of and every child born will be loved.

    • But of course, if bad things happen that will make Conservatives very happy. It’s a pattern we’ve seen time and time again. When Democrats win elections onservatives want the country to fail for their own political ends. No matter how many people suffer.

      • John Anderson says:

        I’m making fun of the sexist idea that men have made a mess of the world and the world would be so much better if women ran it.

  22. Looking at the graphic, I can’t help but notice a double standard here:

    President Obama crying: a sign that he is strong enough to show emotion.
    Republicans crying: a chance to gloat and/or absolutely hilarious.

    I’ve heard a lot about the White People Mourning Romney Tumblr and I’ve noticed quite a few kids in there. Seriously, we’re at the point where children’s tears are funny?

    • I’m sorry, but when I see the hateful hypocrits who spent the last five years (including the 2008 campaign) insulting Obama and his family with the worst personal attacks on a president in living memory, I can’t help but want to laugh in their faces. They were all so damn sure that God was on their side against Satan himself that they couldn’t possibly lose. They called liberals Godless, American haters, ignorant, stupid, lazy, terrorists lovers and on and on. So to hell with them. They deserve all the derision and laughter we can throw at them.

      • Even their kids?

        We’re better than that.

      • Did you forget about the movie detailing how to kill Bush?

        How does it feel to be so dumb?

        The term “far right” is nothing but an anti intellectual buzzword thrown around by typical leftist loons who are further to the left than FDR.

        Admit it Democrats, your party is as anti white as the ANC and you have permanently lost the white vote.

        “Progressivism” is simply “positive discrimination” against white people.

        • Lord Boofhead says:

          Whats the weather like on your planet?

        • Bill Roberts says:

          You mean the movie made by a British company? How is the American Left responsible for that? And no sane liberal wanted anything bad to happen to Bush. The thought of president Cheney still sends a chill up my spine.

          • AnonymousDog says:

            “No sane liberal wanted anything to happen to Bush.”

            True maybe, but your argument depends on the ratio of sane to insane among liberals. Are you willing to give social conservatives the same benefit of doubt you extend to liberals on the issue of ‘sanity’?

            • I was not making that argument. Please tell me when the last time a congressman from the left called Bush a liar during the State of the Union Address. I forget when they did that last. The left has crazy people, sure, but the not as loony as those on the right seem to have in the limelight. Claiming that “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregenancy is proof of why men have no right telling women what to do with their bodies.

              My original point is that whenever people point out the blatant disrepect that Obama is shown (many on the right wont even call him by his name, instead thay call him Obummer, Oblammo, Oblame-o, Hussein, Bama…) they trot out the assassination movie like it was made by Al Gore or Michael Moore. My point is that it was made by the British and was a mocumentary. Throwing that out there as an argument is a way to distract from the real issue.

              • Does “shrub” ring a bell? Quit pretending like your crap doesnt stink. Assholism is equally distributed across the political spectrum.

  23. The lack of self-awareness about conservatives is the issue. The 1950s social paradigm never existed because it denied rights to people who were female, black, gay, young, and poor.

    I’m a liberal white guy living in Atlanta, Georgia. This summer I watched my family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues line up to buy chicken from a gay hating business, Chick-Fil-A, that gave money to far right groups. Essentially, my community chose chicken sandwiches over people. The guy I voted for lost in Georgia by 35 points, Tuesday night. I think my wife and I are just waiting for our three daughters to grow up and leave the house so we can find a place that “gets it”. That will encompass three more Presidential elections. Maybe, just maybe, by then, the misguided social and economic views of people who lack both self-awareness and compassion will have changed and I can stay in my hometown. But I doubt it.

  24. Hank Vandenburgh says:

    I combine libertarian and liberal. Libertarian – micro (get rid of PC and cultural controls.) Liberal – macro – (control the heck out of business and get business out of government.) I think that this kind of triumphalist nonsense creates conservatives. The “privilege” trope probably creats a conservative every ten seconds.

    • Hank:
      ” Liberal – macro – (control the heck out of business…
      every time I see someone misuse the word “liberal” like that I cringe.
      liberal stems from the latin word liber meaning free.

      • Hank Vandenburgh says:

        Sed nos Latinam non vocamus. Yes, Alberich, I agree. Okay, I’m a socialist at the macro level. I also favor returning to pre-Nixon 14% tariffs to reinternalize out industry. We need a farmer-labor party desperately. The Dems are only culturalist.

        • AnonymousDog says:

          A farmer-labor party is complete leftwing fantasy. Unions have no sympathy whatever for the problems of the self employed.

          • Hank Vandenburgh says:

            That’s why I was suggesting libertarianism at the micro level, socialism at the macro level.

          • Unions have no sympathy whatever for the problems of the self employed.

            Perhaps unions/ guilds operate differently here in the UK as Doctors (and I believe Barristers) are often self employed * with highly effectively guilds/ unions that:

            1. limit the number of approved medical schools, student numbers, practitioners
            2. continue to secure high salaries for their members

            *my understanding is that one of the major reasons Doctors finally supported the creation of the NHS, was because they were allowed to keep their self employed status

  25. RedStateKitty says:

    Hell no, you can’t send them to SC.
    We have more than our fair share of them here in Cousinfuckerville, Teabagistan, thank you.
    Believe it or not, there are a lot of people here who are far left of President Obama – but he’s the only one who had a shot at winning, so we voted for him.
    Yes, we’re outnumbered.
    Yes, people forget that we’re here because of the mobs of lurching zombie theocrats that one must pass by in the streets, every member of their families with all the features set close in the middle of their faces, bibles and guns in hand, ignorant redneck catch phrases on their t-shirts. Yes, there are more of them than there are of us…but maybe not for too much longer.
    This election season, here in the asshole of the bible-belt, I saw tons of Obama/ Biden signs and stickers…more than I ever have before….and I’ve lived here for 40 years.
    This election season, my car, covered in stickers dedicated to politics, women’s issues, and gay rights issues…didn’t get keyed. Not even once!
    That might not sound like progress to you, but you have to remember that the South is a good 50 years behind the times. Always. Sad as that is.

    As for the gloating…I’ve really enjoyed reading it online.
    You would too if you had to put up with your neighbors’ racist, homophobic, Christofacist ramblings just to make nice at the PTA.
    No one wants to see the red in this country turn purple and blue more than those of us trapped below the Mason Dixon – well, those of us who care about someone other than ourselves, anyway.

    So…keep it up… because sometimes we like to live vicariously through our blue state brothers and sisters via the interwebz, and watching as your red turns purple and then finally blue…gives us hope and keeps us going down here where life is unfortunately still blood red.

    • “No one wants to see the red in this country turn purple and blue more than those of us trapped below the Mason Dixon”

      Why are you trapped?

    • I like South Carolina. I’ve met some really great people from there. I think you’re characterization is inaccurate and says more about you than it does about the good folks from SC. Your words drip hate, disdain and elitism. Scratch the political left and you find a pretty ugly inside.

  26. Random_Stranger says:

    You know, its worth noting that married white women also broke heavily for Republicans. Continuing to scapegoat men as the sole antagonist in American politics is supporting the feminist fictional narrative.

  27. I’m to the left of Obama, and I find this article pretty obnoxious.

  28. Folks, get real! Ronald Reagan made this Country for the first time a debtor Country. It was him that put America in the toilet. George W. came alone and flushed us down with all of his spending and Tax breaks for the well off. Bill Clinton did the best that he could and left us a monster surplus but “W” took care of that. Now, do you really think that a man, any man could undue in four years what it took “W” eight years to accomplish? Get real, I suspect that there is more than politics behind the opposition to the President. What do you think? Take a look in the mirror and see what you see.

  29. First, George Conn is correct, the 3/5 compromise was put in to keep non-voting slaves from giving the south a disproportionate advantage in the house. To ignore or gloss over this does you a disservice and weakens an otherwise great article.

    Second; why you gotta be hating on Barbecues? As a proudly liberal and openly bisexual blue stater I must implore you and others not to let the red state taint steal this wonderful american delicady from us. Their is nothing better in the spring/summer/early fall than lovingly tending a properly seasoned and rubber rack of ribs or pork shoulder over wonderfully smelling wood smoke for hours, a nice cool drink in your hands, savoring the aromas and letting the time build your desire while you taunt and tantalize your entire neighborhood with the smoke wafting through the air

  30. As a proud Virginian, I would appreciate it if y’all would stop telling these yahoos to move to the south and secede from the nation. We carried Obama in 2008 and 2012. We defeated that odious snake, George Allen, and elected Tim Kaine for our Governor. We have enough right-wing reigious fanatics (Liberty University and Thomas Rd Baptist Church, to name two gonzo organizations); we don’t need more.

  31. George Conn says:

    Not to be a nitpick or anything, but it’s actually the U.S. Constitution that contains the “three-fifths compromise.”
    Contrary to popular belief, it was Southern slaveowners who wanted slaves counted as full people for congressional apportionment purposes, even though they didn’t have the vote; it would therefore have been more “enlightened” not to count them as people at all (as the Northern states argued).

    • Giving slaves the vote would give much more power to slaveowners; because slaveowners controlled pretty much every aspect of their slaves’ lives, a man who owned ten slaves would essentially have eleven votes.

      That’s what the north was afraid of, and that’s why they argued for not giving slaves the vote.

      So the compromise was 3/5, which meant that the man who owned ten slaves got seven votes.

  32. What is a “far-right conservative white guy”? I am asking for a definition, so I can identify them?

    • I would like one too, but because I think it sounds like a reverse True Scotsman fallacy. If one were to mention a conservative who was admirable (say, Eisenhower or even Barry Goldwater) you would get back that they don’t count because they’re not “true” conservatives.

      • Random_Stranger says:

        …kinda of like how evangelicals are not really “christian” when they’re caught with their pants down.

      • Barry Goldwater was a great man. Told it the way it was. Just like Truman. He was a conservative in a time when they knew who they were and want they were about. Now they are just whack jobs looking for work. We all have to come together but the GOP has admit the country has changed and they have changed and they need to change again.

    • It’s actually not that hard to define a “far-right conservative white guy” at all.

      First, most easily, he’s white. Duh.
      Second, he’s liable to score high on an assessment of his authoritarian tendencies.
      Third, he’s three for three on the Big G issues- God, guns, and gays.

      Number two is the big one, the one from which the others flow. I’d strongly suggest anyone interested in understanding this- or anyone who thinks “the left is the same, only different”- to read Bob Altemeyer’s work “The Authoritarians”. It’s the findings of about 20 years of research he’s done into why people are the way they are when a person in power tells them to do (or believe) something.

      • Thank you for your answer, though it would be interesting to hear the definition of the author of the post.
        I have kind of a problem with what you say, as your first two points would be true for many of the left intellectuals in Europe in the fifties through seventies. And while the third point would not fit literally, you can find analogous positions, like the dogmatic beliefs of Communists, which are usually way more authoritarian than religion, and the sympathy for the use of violence to reach “the goal”, which is more authoritarian than being against gun control in general.
        Anyway I am not familiar Altemeyer, so mmaybe his book would clear my confusion.

        • I would absolutely love to have a beer or 5 with you.

          Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe you’re referencing a classic 2 axis political matrix where the vertical axis representing a range from authoritarian to libertarian and the horizontal representing the liberal – conservative spectrum?

          Ahhh to heck with it- its easier to bleat “Blue state Goooooodddd, red state baaaaaaadddd”

          • Alberich- no disagreement re: authoritarianism + communism; as Texpat says, there’s really two axes to the political spectrum, with authoritarianism vs. libertarianism on the ordinate and economics on the abscissa. It’s possible to be far-right economically and very libertarian, or far-left economically and very authoritarian.

            I’m *only* talking about the subject of this article- the modern American far-right white guy.

  33. So, the liberals gloat and insult the conservatives when there’s a liberal victory. The conservatives, bitter for years, then turn around and gloat and insult the liberals when there is a observation victory. All the while the country burns because both sides are too busy gloating and throwing insults to realize they need to work together (there is the small matter of the liberal failure to capture the House).

    Where does it end?

    I had hoped it would end with The Good Men Project, a website dedicated to men sharing their stories with the goal of discovering how to be goods. Since it seems hard to believe that gloating is good, it looks like my hopes were misplaced. I am disappointed today.

  34. What goes around ,also comes around.
    You have got to reap what you sow!
    Payback is a bitch!

  35. Brilliant!

  36. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Wow, that is perverse. I don’t take pleasure in seeing my fellow Americans suffer angst and anxiety in the face of perhaps having their fundamental beliefs come under attack. For instance, I did not enjoy any particular pleasure seeing Chris Matthews practically suffer a stroke after Obama’s first debate performance. I would prefer if my news commentators were not so partisan and I have watched both Fox and MSNBC and can unequivocally say that MSNBC is much more liberally partisan than Fox is conservatively partisan. Fox at least permits the views of liberals to be aired on their network, MSNBC does not.


  1. […] more: The Demise of the Far-Right Conservative White Guy by Nathan […]

  2. […] This is a comment by MikeH on the post “The Demise of the Far-Right Conservative White Guy“. […]

  3. […] As a liberal, I admit to taking perverse pleasure… in watching the FOX News Network turn into Jonestown…  […]

Speak Your Mind