During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a so-called “silent majority” was gaining a lot of attention in media and politics. These were people who were perhaps against the war but also were against the anti-war protests (Lewis 164). Despite being more varied and more diverse in terms of class makeup, political views, etc., the media focused on the blue-collar subsection of this group and increasingly portrayed them as the “reactionary hardhats” moving from being more moderate to being fully in favor of the war (Lewis 166). The “hardhat rallies” were often reported as being pro-war, when in fact, the opinions of the ralliers on the war were far more varied (Lewis 173). What most media outlets failed to notice was that these rallies were focused more on what the protesters perceived as class issues (Lewis 174). Many citizens were against the anti-war protesters because they saw them as privileged kids and “elite doves” that didn’t have to worry about ruining their opportunities by staging aggressive and sometimes violent protests.
Nixon and Wallace noticed these stereotypes and took advantage of them. Nixon painted himself as a champion of the average, working-class American who stood up against the “privileged elite” in an attempt to get more people on his side (Lewis 169-170). Additionally, he used the phrase “silent majority” in a speech to draw in people who felt like their voices weren’t being heard. His administration began to characterize the student protesters as a “strident minority” and portrayed them as being an unpatriotic group drowning out the voices of the “silent majority” (Lewis 170). Wallace did something similar and attacked antiwar protestors as well. His rhetoric was aimed at working-class individuals and helped fuel their resentment of upper class, liberal Americans. Nixon and Wallace diverted voters, who otherwise would have voted Democrat due to being anti war, towards supporting them by focusing on being anti-protest.
If the anti-war left had been taken out of the picture, there still would have been things causing this divide. The representation in the media seemed to be contributing to much of it, focusing on the more extreme people making up the White working class. With regards to film, Joe Curran from Joe was the prime embodiment of the stereotype of the “reactionary hardhat” (Lewis 176). With regards to the news media, much focus was placed on the White working-class individuals at riots and protests, even if they didn’t represent the majority of the protesters. In addition to the media representation, the class divide itself existed fully without the help of the anti-war left. It wouldn’t have taken much for the white working-class to take issue with other actions of upper-class white Americans, or vice versa.
I think the Democratic Party may have been able to prevent this political realignment if they better understood their supporters and were able to make their problems feel heard. That being said, the political realignment was in part largely due to the actions of student protesters, who although perhaps aligned with the Democratic Party, were not representative of the Democratic Party. As such, the party might not have been able to reach those siding with Nixon regardless.
Will Wright 