After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Bageant’s writing became increasingly urgent. He thought the Bush presidency was unleashing something akin to class warfare in the country, and yet many of his contemporaries, the poor men and women with whom he drank beers and smoked cigarettes, seemed all too happy to connive in their own demise. It was out of this paradox that Deer Hunting with Jesus was born.
The book became something of a cult sensation among the (admittedly small) group of readers interested in class politics in America. It introduced an extraordinary array of characters—including the author’s brother, a demon-expunging preacher who tried to convert Bageant to fundamentalist Christianity during a hunting trip. And the book treated those characters with no sense of condescension or remove. Unlike commentators who use the poor as set decorations in some larger piece of political agitprop, Bageant was simply describing his daily life in Winchester, without intellectual disdain or anthropological distance. Indeed, his mockery of white, working class Americans only succeeded because, like Woody Allen telling Jewish jokes, he was so evidently one of those he mocked. “He liked redneck food. He was a redneck,” says one drinking friend. “But he’d read Sartre and Camus.”
While Deer Hunting with Jesus did all right in the US, it became a best-seller in Australia, and also sold well in Europe. These were, Bageant believed, parts of the world with a more finely tuned sense of class and its ramifications than exists in contemporary America. In the US, by contrast, the class politics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was subsumed by post-World War II consumerism, by the idea that everyone identified upward, aspiring to a social status that by default promoted them to a higher class than that of their parents. “It is most politically incorrect in America to suggest that we are not born equally endowed,” he wrote in Rainbow Pie. “Yet I cannot help but contemplate what effect, if any, the flight of several generations of the brightest kids from heartland laboring America has had on the working class gene pool. . . . As any dog breeder can tell you, slow wit can be bred in as easily as bred out.” Pause. Deadpan stare. Deliver the kicker. “This may help explain the popularity of such things among my class as snowmobiles, Garth Brooks, hot chicken wings, and deep-fried pickles.”
And then, on a dime, he turns to the serious business. “Acknowledged or not, it is also our national shame, this denial of the existence of a massive, permanent underclass in America. In doing so, we deny the one truth held in common by every enlightened civilization: we are our brother’s keepers.”
When he wrote Rainbow Pie, Bageant, who had taken to spending much of each year in Belize and, later, in the American expat town of Ajijic, in central Mexico, was in his mid-sixties. He was eating unhealthfully; not exercising; smoking and drinking too much in a variety of bars and greasy-spoon cafes around Winchester. “By the time my people hit sixty,” he wrote in Deer Hunting with Jesus, “we look like a bunch of hypertensive red-faced toads in a phlegm-coughing contest. Fact is, we are even unhealthier than we look.”
He was, according to his wife, Barbara, and friends, increasingly enraged at the state of America and, more particularly, at the working class itself. There was, says Barbara, a sense of “hopelessness” that came to pervade her husband. After his fourth martini he’d become morose, sometimes aggressive. He was known to throw drinks in people’s faces. Perhaps, in some way, Bageant might even have had a death wish.
“Toward the end his bitterness was overwhelming,” says his friend Nick Smart. “He became a recluse; he was tortured by the role that was thrust upon him by fate. There aren’t many Bageants out there: Studs Terkel, Hunter Thompson. He saw working-class Winchester as in a morass, a continuous cycle of life getting worse, not better. They didn’t have aspirations. It was almost like the caste system in India. The rednecks were so ignorant, lacking in aspirations to change, and the system was conspiring to exploit them.”

Excuse me … uncomfortable truths? Bageant does nothing but parrot the timeless progressive truism that conservatives are too dumb to see the world “as it really is” and always vote against their common interests. It’s typical left wing condescension for the lumpen. Nothing particularly thought provoking or original about that.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 10:30 AM
Nothing new here, just achingly mechanical interpretations of American complexities.
It would have been interesting if the 'Thomas Frank' question had been reversed - 'What's the Matter with Malibu/Martha's Vineyard/North Chicago?' Residents of these pleasant precincts, by the dogmatically left-wing interpretation of politics, also 'vote against their economic interests'. But the question seldom is asked in the MSM politico-journalistic echo chamber. I suppose the answer is that denizens are more . . . evolved . . . and they . . . think about the big picture and, well, really care about important cultural issues and saving the planet and so forth.
Uh-oh, wait a second. Where does this framing device take us regarding social 'class' in America? Fortuately, CJR and others will never ask the question that prompts the implicit, class-bigoted answer.
If CJR is really interested in being counter-intuitive, and exploring 'unpleasant truths' and so on, they could examine the literature that suggests that (1) affluent people are more socially 'liberal' than others, leading to (2) the paradox that economic liberalism is undercut by the social liberalism, since when you get down to it, economic outcomes depend more on 'culture' than on this or that monetary or fiscal policy. Don't want to mess with your worldview too much, there, CJR.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 04:58 PM
CJR seems to attract a disproportionate share of trolls, doesn't it?
It's easy to understand why folks like Mike and Mark want to discourage you from reading Joe Bageant's work. Sure, Joe enjoys ranting, but he actually knows the folks drinking at the Royal Lunch until they need a cab ride home in his home town, Winchester, Va. He can explain how the local power structure of realtors, developers, retailers, bankers and lawyers run things, supported by the right-wing Byrd family's local paper and the right-wing Lewis family's talk radio station. He watched how his father died penniless, and he watches Dottie singing Patsy Cline even when she can't afford to fill her prescriptions.
Mike and Mark don't want you to know about Dottie and her friends, because they really don't want progressives to make common cause with the white underclass. It wouldn't be in their interests.
#3 Posted by BillNRoc, CJR on Thu 29 Sep 2011 at 12:51 PM
To BIllNRoc, first off, I'd post under my own name before calling anyone a 'troll' - a 'troll' seems to be defined as 'someone who is besting a left-winger in an argument'. (Not unlike racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.)
Second, good luck on the dream of uniting the political cultures of Winchester, Virginia with those of Berkeley and Cambridge under one banner. Culture matters. If it didn't, then Manhattan, which has a mean value of about a million dollars for the average address. Maybe Barbara Ehrenreich will look into that in her next book, but I doubt it.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 1 Oct 2011 at 05:47 PM
SO?
Why .. of course. The 30,000,000 illegals who have invaded the USA are deluded. They ought to return home and tell "The Economist" that the USA is a lousy place.
For every Mike Moore -- there 100,000 illegals that would be happy to live in his $5,000,000 Manhattan co-op. Yes, American capitalism is terrible.
LOL, ROTF.
#5 Posted by R.P., CJR on Tue 4 Oct 2011 at 08:22 PM
Read his blog and essays here: http://www.joebageant.com
#6 Posted by Ed Westfield Jr., CJR on Wed 5 Oct 2011 at 02:50 PM
I'm in the deep south, and Joe's people are my people, and I sometimes work at benefits for terminally sick kids without health insurance. Almost without exception their parents are voting against their own self-interests, voting for people who think their situation is their own fault for not trying hard enough. My people fuel the lotteries in their hope that some day they too might be millionaires, and they won't want to give any of it up when they get there – even though 65% of current millionaires say they wouldn't mind giving up more.
I miss the old right wing. It was no stranger to Christianity, and it didn't have to try so hard to justify itself.
#7 Posted by stephen broussard, CJR on Fri 7 Oct 2011 at 10:22 AM