I tried to lay my cards explicitly on the table in one of the later chapters of the book: I am a conservative, one who doubts that the 1960s approach to welfare had made it easier for our country’s poor children to achieve their dreams. But those of us on the Right are deluding ourselves if we fail to acknowledge that it did accomplish something else: it prevented a lot of suffering, and made it possible for people like Mamaw to access food and medicine when they were too poor, too old, or too sick to buy it themselves. This ain’t nothing. To me, the fundamental question of our domestic politics over the next generation is how to continue to protect our society’s less fortunate while simultaneously enabling advancement and mobility for everyone. We can easily create a welfare state that accepts the fact of a permanent American underclass, one where family dysfunction, childhood trauma, cultural segregation, and hopelessness coexist with some basic measure of subsistence. Or we can do something considerably more difficult: reject the notion of a permanent American underclass.
And to be fair to Vance, this is indeed the book that Hillbilly’s Elegy is -- an examination of the reality faced by the poor rural whites among whom Vance was raised.
But there is a larger problem with the book. It mostly avoids placing blame -- except when it comes to figuring out what to do next.
Let’s begin with “Mamaw.” This is Bonnie Vance, Vance’s grandmother, who more or less raised him instead of his drug-addicted mother, and Mamaw is an interesting set of contrasts in Vance’s narrative -- serving as a kind of marker for the shift in the cultural and political opinions of her class.
Political scientists have spent millions of words trying to explain how Appalachia and the South went from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican in less than a generation. Some blame race relations and the Democratic Party’s embrace of the civil rights movement. Others cite religious faith and the hold that social conservatism has on evangelicals in that region. A big part of the explanation lies in the fact that many in the white working class saw precisely what I did, working at Dillman’s. As far back to the 1970s, the white working class began to turn to Richard Nixon because of a perception that, as one man put it, government was “payin’ people who are on welfare today doin’ nothin’! They’re laughing at our society! And we’re all hardworkin’ people and we’re gettin’ laughed at for workin’ everyday!”
Interesting (to me, at least) is that the footnote on that last quote leads to Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland -- a much deeper dive into both the touchstones (real and manufactured) that brought about these changes. But Vance’s examination of Mamaw and her opinions has some distinct value beyond what Perlstein may have been able to convey.
At around this time, our neighbor -- one of Mamaw and Papaw’s oldest friends -- registered the house next to ours for Section 8. Section 8 is a government program that offers low-income residents a voucher to rent housing. Mamaw’s friend had little luck renting his property, but when he qualified his house for the Section 8 voucher, he virtually assured that would change. Mamaw saw it as a betrayal, ensuring that “bad” people would move into the neighborhood and drive down property values.
Despite our efforts to draw bright lines between the working and nonworking poor, Mamaw and I recognized that we shared a lot in common with those whom we thought gave our people a bad name. Those Section 8 recipients looked a lot like us. The matriarch of the first family to move in next door was born in Kentucky but moved north at a young age as her parents sought a better life. She’d gotten involved with a couple of men, each of whom had left her with a child but no support. She was nice, and so were her kids. But the drugs and the late-night fighting revealed troubles that too many hillbilly transplants knew too well. Confronted with such a realization of her own family’s struggle, Mamaw grew frustrated and angry.
This part seems key to me. Mamaw got angry -- not because the Section 8 recipient was unlike her, but because she was too much like her. And…
From that anger sprang Bonnie Vance the social policy expert: “She’s a lazy whore, but she wouldn’t be if she was forced to get a job”; “I hate those fuckers for giving these people the money to move into our neighborhood.” She’d rant against the people we’d see in the grocery store: “I can’t understand why people who’ve worked all their lives scrape by while these deadbeats buy liquor and cell phone coverage with our tax money.”
These views even seemed strange to Vance.
These were bizarre views for my bleeding-heart grandma. And if she blasted the government for doing too much one day, she’d blast it for going too little the next. The government, after all, was just helping poor people find a place to live, and my grandma loved the idea of anyone helping the poor. She had no philosophical objection to Section 8 vouchers. So the Democrat in her would resurface. She’d rant about the lack of jobs and wonder aloud whether that was why our neighbor couldn’t find a good man. In her more compassionate moments, Mamaw asked if it made any sense that our society could afford aircraft carriers but not drug treatment facilities -- like Mom’s -- for everyone. Sometimes she’d criticize the faceless rich, whom she saw as far too unwilling to carry their fair share of the social burden. Mamaw saw every ballot failure of the local school improvement tax (and there were many) as an indictment of our society’s failure to provide a quality education to kids like me.
Mamaw’s sentiments occupied wildly different parts of the political spectrum. Depending on her mood, Mamaw was a radical conservative or a European-style social Democrat. Because of this, I initially assumed that Mamaw was an unreformed simpleton and that as soon as she opened her mouth about policy or politics, I might as well close my ears. Yet I quickly realized that in Mamaw’s contradictions lay great wisdom. I had spent so long just surviving my world, but now that I had a little space to observe it, I began to see the world as Mamaw did. I was scared, confused, angry, and heartbroken. I’d blame large businesses for closing up shop and moving overseas, and then I’d wonder if I might have done the same thing. I’d curse our government for not helping enough, and then I’d wonder if, in its attempts to help, it actually made the problem worse.
Radical conservative or social Democrat. This seemingly illogical tension Vance saw in his Mamaw is the tension that pervades much of his work.
As a younger man he became somewhat obsessed with the bigger question behind it. Why?
I consumed books about social policy and the working poor. One book in particular, a study by the eminent sociologist William Julius Wilson called ‘The Truly Disadvantaged,’ struck a nerve. I was sixteen the first time I read it, and though I didn’t fully understand it all, I grasped the core thesis. As millions migrated north to factory jobs, the communities that sprouted up around those factories were vibrant but fragile: When the factories shut their doors, the people left behind were trapped in towns and cities that could no longer support such large populations with high-quality work. Those who could -- generally the well-educated, wealthy, or well connected -- left, leaving behind communities of poor people. These remaining folks were the “truly disadvantaged” -- unable to find good jobs on their own and surrounded by communities that offered little in the way of connections or social support.
Wilson’s book spoke to me. I wanted to write him a letter and tell him that he had described my home perfectly. That it resonated so personally is odd, however, because he wasn’t writing about the hillbilly transplants from Appalachia -- he was writing about black people in the inner cities. The same was true of Charles Murray’s seminal ‘Losing Ground,’ another book about black folks that could have been written about hillbillies -- which addressed the way our government encouraged social decay through the welfare state.
Though insightful, neither of these books fully answered the questions that plagued me: Why didn’t our neighbor leave that abusive man? Why did she spend her money on drugs? Why couldn’t she see that her behavior was destroying her daughter? Why were all of these things happening not just to our neighbor but to my mom? It would be years before I learned that no single book, or expert, or field could fully explain the problems of hillbillies in modern America. Our elegy is a sociological one, yes, but it is also about psychology and community and culture and faith.
These are the kind of passages that seem most impactful in Vance’s work. The ones where he begins to move away from the frames of blame that dominate so much of American life, where he begins to look at problems for what they are instead of who caused them (the bugbearish mention of ‘our government’ notwithstanding).
But in another way, Vance seems to be simply posing. He’s describing the people he knows and he’s examining the things that make them think the things they think, but he’s also not suggesting any kind of solution to their problems.
Significant percentages of white conservative voters -- about one-third -- believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. In one poll, 32 percent of conservatives said that they believed Obama was foreign-born and another 19 percent said they were unsure -- which means that a majority of white conservatives aren’t certain that Obama is even an American. I regularly hear from acquaintances or distant family members that Obama has ties to Islamic extremists, or is a traitor, or was born in some far-flung corner of the world.
Many of my new friends blame racism for this perception of the president. But the president feels like an alien to many Middletonians for reasons that have nothing to do with skin color. Recall that not a single one of my high school classmates attended an Ivy League school. Barack Obama attended two of them and excelled at both. He is brilliant, wealthy, and speaks like a constitutional law professor -- which, of course, he is. Nothing about him bears any resemblance to the people I admired growing up: His accent -- clean, perfect, neutral -- is foreign; his credentials are so impressive that they’re frightening; he has made his life in Chicago, a dense metropolis; and he conducts himself with a confidence that comes from knowing that the modern American meritocracy was built for him. Of course, Obama overcame adversity in his own right -- adversity familiar to many of us -- but that was long before any of us knew him.
President Obama came on the scene right as so many people in my community began to believe that the modern American meritocracy was not built for them. We know we’re not doing well. We see it every day: in the obituaries for teenage kids that conspicuously omit the cause of death (reading between the lines: overdose), in the deadbeats we watch our daughters waste their time with. Barack Obama strikes at the heart of our deepest insecurities. He is a good father while many of us aren’t. He wears suits to his job while we wear overalls, if we’re lucky enough to have a job at all. His wife tells us that we shouldn’t be feeding our children certain foods, and we hate her for it -- not because we think she’s wrong but because we know she’s right.
Insecurity and jealousy. Like Mamaw, Vance here (I think) accurately describes the malaise that threatens so many Americans and what they perceive as their way of life.
But how do we fix this problem? Do we educate? Do we subsidize? Do we empower? Sadly, Hillbilly’s Elegy contains no prescriptions. It is only a kind of diagnosis.
+ + +
This post appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.






