Jocks vs. Geeks (with Lemmings in the Middle)

“There are two types of high school students: the sunny kids whose eyes light up at the announcement of a pep rally, who race to the gymnasium to shout the fight song, and the sullen black T-shirt-wearing hordes who let out disgusted sighs while hunting for a hiding place to smoke cheap cigarettes. Conformists versus contrarians, extroverts versus introverts, fans of Top 40 music versus fans of obscure, critically-acclaimed bands, people who believe those in authority versus those who don't. Athletes grow up to vote Republican, dorks Democratic. The great divide was chronicled by the John Hughes films of the 1980s--aggressive, bland privilege meets victimized, appealing alienation and wins--and it lives on in a classic right-wing Internet reposte to leftist posters: "You got beat up in school a lot, didn't you?" Members of the in crowd can marry those of the out crowd, work together and even be friends, but they will never share basic assumptions about the way the world works.”

In the paragraph above from his October 12 article, Ted Rall, with his usual color and concision, describes two committed camps in America’s politics. It’s a nice, even seductive, use of dualism. But as I’m constantly trying to impress upon my school-age nephew, people can’t always be classified as good or bad, in this case, jock or geek.

I think Rall has left out a population as critical to high school social politics as they are to contemporary American politics: the aspirants, or minions, of those on top (hereafter “the Middle”), a sad hybrid who are both bland and victimized, often unaware. They like Top 40 music and shout the fight song, but they don’t enjoy full social acceptance by the jocks and cheerleaders (hereafter “Those on Top”). They conform almost feverishly and believe those in authority, but they don’t show up in many of the yearbook’s snapshot photos. They’re not in the running for the homecoming court, but their votes decide who is. They are nameless and faceless for the most part, with no representative in “The Breakfast Club.” They idolize Those on Top and supply a crowd from which they can easily stand out.

In modern America’s political landscape, the Middle’s blandness and victimization is even more saddening, and comes with far greater consequences.  Republicans in power need middle- and working-class voters to believe that with Bush in office they (the Middle-ese) can enjoy the benefits that come with being part of that select group who are ‘in.’ The GOP’s crafty use of the dependable three G’s (which bring feelings of superiority over us geeks “outside the mainstream”), their setting the lexicon of the issues, and their deceptive lure of socioeconomic gain (“be rich like us!”) is remarkably successful.

In high school, those in the Middle wanted cooler cars, hipper clothes, and felt privileged when the cheerleader in front of them asked to copy their homework—who cares if it was the only time she ever spoke? How different is it when the adult Middle are seduced by the siren call of lower taxes and manipulative appeals to patriotism and religious fervor then exchange their economic security, their vote, and their dignity for the chance to consider themselves one of the morally (if not economically) superior ‘in’ crowd.

In a maudlin scene from a non-Hughes movie of the 1980’s, a nerdy Anthony Edwards invites “all those who’ve felt picked on”  in school to join the geeks in standing against Those on Top. The Kerry campaign has not been perfect, and one of its failures has been its inability (or unwillingness?) to reach out to the socioeconomic aspirants, the NASCAR Dads, the Middle, whom the GOP courts aggressively but does not benefit. Like the cheerleader who didn’t finish her homework, Bush & Co. turn on the charm long enough to secure the Middle’s help, then give the well-connected government contracts, belittle concerns of the underemployed, and cut their own taxes, passing it off as ‘relief’ for all.

If Kerry would sound a similar plea (as Howard Dean tried to; as usual, his much-needed no-nonsense approach was too much for the easily offended or faint of heart) and manage to do so without alienating the Middle, he might win some of them over. The challenge seems to be awakening this group to the idea that they can improve their country and their lives by relinquishing some of their need for status and approval.

Cracking the surface is tough. First, it’s not easy to admit you’ve been used. Added to that, it’s not easy to align yourself with a freak, or a homosexual, or an athiest, or a Muslim, or a pro-choice feminist, when you’ve been programmed to be suspicious at best and at worst to hate. Still, in the end, one hopes that straight shooting, not more pandering and insulting, will be what brings any disaffected voters from the Middle into the Democratic fold.