Strangers in Their Own Land

Arlie Russell Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2016) visits the people of Louisiana bayou country, most of whom are part of the conservative right. As she comes to know the people who oppose several of the views she holds, she finds common ground with them, discovering they have the very concerns all Americans share. A compelling portrayal of lives torn apart by the economy, the book depicts political choices that make sense in the context of these individuals’ circumstances. In doing so, it strives to determine why those who would presumably benefit the most from government intervention so vehemently oppose the idea.

The book opens with an introduction to Mike Schaff, a Southerner who is fiercely loyal to the Tea Party and the Republican Party, despite the fact that he suffers from the policies they champion. Mike has lived in Louisiana his entire life; he is the victim of an enormous sinkhole that consumed his house and the houses of several others. Speaking to Mike is the first step in breaking down “empathy walls.”

Hochschild’s aim is to bridge the gap between red (specifically Southern) states and blue states. She claims that the political right of America has moved further right in the past few decades, widening the distance between themselves and progressives. Hochschild also introduces “the great paradox,” which is the tendency for America’s poorest states to back the Republican Party—a party that offers the least amount of aid to the poor.



The author believes that the circumstances in Louisiana are a “keyhole” issue in which a single topic in a specific location can provide an understanding of the divide between the right and left in the United States as well as the great paradox. She takes the complaints of the Tea Party seriously, which range from flat or falling wages to vast demographic change and an increasingly liberal culture that makes fun of their patriotism and religious faith. Those she speaks to feel others are “cutting in line” as money is taken from workers and given to the lazy.

Hochschild goes on to introduce Lee Sherman of DeRidder, Louisiana, an elderly, disabled man. Lee is a former football player and NASCAR racer. He moved to Louisiana from Seattle in the 1950s. Although he has a history of environmentalism, he is a Tea Party loyalist. Lee reveals that in the mid-1960s, he was employed as a pipefitter for PPG. There, he survived and helped clean up after an explosion that killed five of Lee’s coworkers.

Later on, Lee was bathed in liquid chlorinated hydrocarbons, which burned his clothes off him. On a regular basis, the company would also have him dump toxic waste into the Bayou d’Inde. In the 1980s, after fifteen years with the company, Lee became sick, and the company fired him instead of paying for medical coverage. Seven years later, the state issued an advisory about chemical contamination in seafood. Lee confronted PPG about dumping the toxic waste linked to the contamination. He even interrupted a public meeting with a sign stating, “I’m the one who dumped it in the bayou.” However, Lee is loyal to the Republican Party and lists federal taxes among his concerns. He still distrusts chemical companies, but he is more suspicious of the federal government because he claims it spends his tax money on lazy people.



Harold Areno is an elderly pipefitter. Harold’s family has lived in Louisiana for several generations and has used the land surrounding the Bayou d’Inde for fishing and hunting. The pollution has made doing so virtually impossible today. Harold has lost his mother, sister, brother-in-law, and several friends to cancer. He and his wife, Annette, are themselves cancer survivors. Despite feeling bitter at how the industry has treated the environment they were raised in, the Arenos supported Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election while fully acknowledging that he is a businessman who would not care about cleaning up the environment.

Devoted Pentecostals, the Arenos have always voted based on candidates who “put the Bible where it belongs.” Their religion leads them to be inclined toward socially conservative candidates. Harold is particularly concerned about his opposition to abortion and sees his fight for “all those babies” as crucial for his salvation.

Theories abound as to the reason working-class voters support policies that liberals believe hurt the working class. Thomas Frank suggests the G.O.P. lures voters using social issues but delivers tax cuts to the rich. Other scholars point to the political machines built by wealthy donors such as Charles and David Koch. Some also point to the influence of conservative media such as Fox News.



Hochschild puts together what she refers to as the “deep story,” an empathetic portrayal beyond facts or judgment that voices the individuals’ worldviews. She asks the reader to imagine that they are standing in a long line. You are male, white, Christian, poor, and aging. People of color stand in line behind you, and you wish them the best, but you have been waiting long and working hard, and the line is barely moving. Then you see people cutting in line ahead of you, and some are blacks, immigrants, and refugees. They receive sympathy, welfare, and affirmative action.

However, none of the subjects Hochschild interviewed appear to have been directly hurt through competition from people of color. Hochschild claims that their economic issues actually lie elsewhere, in unrestricted corporate power and technological transformation. She says that while cultural and demographic changes have robbed white men of the standing they once held, and while she feels their pain, she does not agree with their racial finger-pointing.