“Conservative Anthem”

The way you could tell that “Rich Men North of Richmond” was going to become a “conservative anthem” is this lyric in particular:

Lord, we got folks in the street, ain’t got nothin’ to eat
And the obese milkin’ welfare
Well, God, if you’re 5-foot-3 and you’re 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds

It is a gripe song. It is whiny. Poor me. To backtrack for a second, these are the narrator’s central complaints:

• The main character has a shitty job that doesn’t pay much.
• His job does not offer much meaning to his life, so he comes home and gets drunk.
• The world is a complicated mess.
• “Rich men North of Richmond” want “total control.” No explanation for this is noted.
• You’re “taxed to no end” and this results in your “dollar ain’t shit.” The federal income tax rate for someone with a job so shitty and low-paying that it constitutes the opening lyric to a conservative anthem would be rather low, maybe 10%.
• Just before he swings two verses at short fat people eating “fudge rounds” “milking welfare” he complains about “rich men north of Richmond” caring more about “minors” on “an island somewhere” than “miners.” So, an assumption has to be made that this song is about the poor and working class. The concept of solidarity for the working class doesn’t jibe with the jab against people on welfare.
• The main character laments how “Young men are puttin’ themselves six feet in the ground ’cause all this damn country does is keep on kickin’ them down.”
• Then repeat prechorus and chorus.

I am old enough to remember when protest songs were about shared values and unity, not dividing. I’m also old enough to remember when conservatives were all about taking personal responsibility and pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps. Under Limbaugh’s law, the song’s protagonist is poor simply because he isn’t trying hard enough.

The welfare queen trope as set forth in this song is also a dog-whistle – if the main villain is supposed to be “rich men north of Richmond” why would the song devote so much time demeaning people who, like the song’s protagonist, are poor and struggling? Why would someone who expresses solidarity for “miners” downtrodden by DC politics not also express solidarity for other people whom this system has ill served?

This is why it’s a conservative anthem – because it doesn’t really attack politicians nearly as much as it attacks welfare queens, and it doesn’t take a genius sociologist to figure out exactly what’s being talked about here.