Reading O'Connor's "The Barber"

I've been reading from Flannery O'Connor's The Complete Stories. I just read one of her short stories called "The Barber." I am not sure what to make of it. Knowing that O'Connor is distinguished by violence in her writing, I expected something grotesque - but I was disappointed.

The plot revolves around a local election in the small country town of Dilton. There are two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, and Rayber supports Darmon, whereas his barber and the others in the barbershop support Hawkson. Rayber is annoyed they would vote for someone like Hawkson, who is backwards, narrow-minded, and racist (basically a good ole country boy) - even the black George backs him. How could they vote for a tobacco chewing man like that?

Rayber, who is a college instructor and considers himself intellectually superior to the barber, mostly keeps his thoughts about the election to himself, prefering not to argue with "fools." But after their "ignorance" irritates him enough, he writes a speech conveying why Darmon is the better candidate. The barber remains unmoved, simply telling Rayber that all he wanted all along was for him, like everyone else, to think - to think his vote through and have reasons for supporting a candidate.

Rayber seems smarter than the other characters, and Darmon seems to be the best candidate, but Rayber has such a hard time handling the barber's insistence on voting for Hawkson. He is always rattled and perplexed; even when he gives his speech, his words come out "like freight cars, jangling, backing up on each other, grating to a halt, sliding, clinching back, jarring..." He cannot articulate himself smoothly or with precision, even going through several drafts before finishing his speech. If he is right, then why is he always so vexed?

Maybe O'Connor shows the frustration of being a minority, for Rayber is a liberal in a rural, conservative town. Or, she tells us that what matters is that we think for ourselves, not that we need to persuade everyone to our own perspective. I prefer to see it differently though. When Rayber reads his speech to Jacobs, a colleague at the college, Rayber asks him if he's ever argued with a barber. Jacobs says, "I never argue." He isn't sure Rayber will be successful, and even recommends, "Don't spoil your complexion arguing with barbers." O'Connor seems to say there's a pointlessness or ineffectiveness to arguing, and, indeed, Rayber's efforts are ultimately futile. I read that the Catholic O'Connor believed that secularlism fails to change the world, and I think Rayber is one of her examples.