Barack's New Deal
Michael Young | April 12, 2008, 3:52am
Over at Powerline, there is an interesting post on how Barack Obama backtracked in his Indiana speech yesterday to counter "his elitist disparagement of ‘small town' voters" in an earlier speech in San Francisco.
In San Francisco, Obama had said: "So it's not surprising then that [when voters] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
In Indiana, he polished this, so that it came out:
People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them. So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington.
While Obama is indeed engaging in spin, there is a far more disturbing aspect to his interpretation. He misses the essential nature of modern culture. People don't end up focusing on issues like the right to bear arms, gay marriage, faith-based and family-based issues, and the like, because of bitterness against Washington or a sense that they can't effect change there. People focus on these issues because modern American political culture is, effectively, about subcultures, variety, pursuing parochial aims, and shaping one's identity and personal agendas independently of the state.
What Obama implicitly regards (in both his statements) as signs of disintegration, as reflections of popular frustration, are in fact examples of a thriving culture. Exceptions to this, of course, are anti-immigration sentiment and bigoted protectionism, both of which Obama conveniently dropped in his Indiana comments. Yet Obama's approach betrays a very suffocating vision of the state as the be-all and end-all of political-cultural behavior. Outside the confines of the state there is no salvation, only resentment. This is nonsense, but it also partly explains why Obama is so admired among educated liberals, who still view the state as the main medium of American providence.
Mad Max | April 12, 2008, 1:15pm | #
Sen. Obama's position seems like an example of the "waste of time" theory of "cultural issues" - the idea that the important political questions are economic (in the narrow sense), and therefore anyone who focuses on other issues - issues which are not directly economic - is wasting time and diverting his focus and attention from the true, economic issues. In this particular case, Sen. Obama is spinning this that the people haven't been offered real economic solutions, so they've been forced to wank off with the cultural issues - use them as a security blanket because there haven't been enough statesmen like Obama to show revive their faith in economic interventionism.
I wonder if the Senator is willing to apply his principles consistently. If he truly believes that God, guns and gays [to take a sample of purportedly non-economic issues] are distractions from real issues, then that would seem to apply regardless of a person's position on the three Gs. In other words, if God-guns-gays are timewasting issues, then they're a waste of time for *everyone* who focuses on them, whether they're in the NRA or the Brady Campaign, the Christian Coalition or the Gay Rights Campaign.
I would love to see Sen. Obama try and play out this idea - maybe have a Sister Souljah moment or two with traditional Democratic constituencies.
"Sen. Barack Obama today, in a speech before Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, urged his audience to 'focus on the real issues.' The Senator said: 'why are you spending so much time worrying about religious monuments in courthouse squares when the Republicans are trying to steal your Grandpa's pension?'
"In another speech, in front of the Coalition for Victim Disarmament, derided the 'excessive focus' on gun control. 'Gun control isn't important,' said Obama. 'What's important is that I have a plan to save your grandma from being thrown out into the snow - or what *would* be snow if it wasn't for that darn global warming.'
"In a third speech, Obama told the San Francisco Gay Club that 'it's time you stopped worrying about gay rights. Who cares? Never mind what I think about gay rights, the important thing is that I have a wonderful plan to save your jobs."
I wonder how that would go over? I wonder if those Deep Thinkers who don't want people to be distracted by cultural issues would support Obama on that one?
Kolohe | April 12, 2008, 1:59pm | #
who can't connect to real Americans because of his elitist, globalist background.
Neil, let's roll the tape:
Bush II - Yale/Harvard, Oil industry exec, Professional sports team owner
Clinton - Yale, Rhodes Scholar
Bush I - CIA Head, heir of New England blue bloods.
Reagan - Hollywood Actor
Carter - 1st president born in a hospital, Naval Officer
Ford - quarter century in US congress
Nixon - big city lawyer
Johnson - another life long senator
Kennedy - another Harvard, New England blue blood
Ike - won ww2
Yep, no elitist, globalist background in any dudes lately. (The streak does end with Truman)
And your boys: McCain, son and grandson of naval officers? Romney, son of a governor and himself CEO of hedge fund? These guys define global elitists (NTTAWTT).
I give you credit for your boy Huckabee however; he does in fact not have a single iota of the globalist elitist background. But that's because he is, in the words of another, a ignorant hillbilly wackjob preacher. Over this give me global elitism any day of the week (and twice on Sunday.)
Guy Montag | April 12, 2008, 3:07pm | #
I think I found the source for the bitterness quote. It came to me after a few more cups of coffee and a couple of glasses of murh-lot (you know, I am one of those 'heartland' types).
In the documentry by D. Knight,
To Serve Man we learn that folks from rural areas truly are bitter, quite "gamey" tasting. City people, not so much. That was a key reason why the visitors concentrated on the large cities, rather than the rural areas.
J sub D | April 12, 2008, 10:25am | #,
Are you saying that the actions of the corporate elite don't have a large effect on the economy?
Yes and the evidence you brought is proof of a small effect, that is corrected by the market shortly. The Wal*Mart does not really fit as they are still successful by not making the same mistakes as A&P, K-Mart and others. When they do, some better firm will replace them as a market leader.
You are f*ing kidding me?
That is an outrage. Call the parks commisioner and verbally slap him around for a while. All of her pioneering work in computer science was done as a naval officer.
I believe it is on private property, created by the owners of the apartment complex where she lived near the Pentagon. It is across the street from the Pentagon Row shopping mall. If you watch the opening sequence of
No Way Out, you can see the apartment building, second one from I-395, IIRC. But that was shot before the mall was built and while Adm. Hopper was still alive.
Mo,
The most of the presidents before Mr. Carter were born at home rather than in a hospital. Mr. Truman would have probably wished folks believe he was born on a Grayhound bus rolling down highway 41, but I do not believe that was the case.
Neil | April 12, 2008, 9:21pm | #
The Obama Lemmings (like Joe) need to take a look at this:
"12 reasons 'bitter' is bad for Obama by Mike Allen:
1. It lets Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) off the mat at a time when even some of her top supporters had begun to despair about her prospects. Clinton hit back hard on the campaign trail Saturday. And her campaign held a conference call where former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Pittsburgh native, described Obama’s remarks as “condescending and disappointing” and “undercutting his message of hope.”
2. If you are going to say something that makes you sound like a clueless liberal, don’t say it in San Francisco. Obama’s views might have been received very differently if he had expressed them in public to Pennsylvania voters, saying he understood and could alleviate their frustrations.
3. Some people actually use guns to hunt — not to compensate for a salary that’s less than a U.S. senator’s.
4. Some people cling to religion not because they are bitter but because they believe it, and because faith in God gives them purpose and comfort.
5. Some hard-working Americans find it insulting when rich elites explain away things dear to their hearts as desperation. It would be like a white politician telling blacks they cling to charismatic churches to compensate for their plight. And it vindicates centrist Democrats who have been arguing for a decade that their party has allowed itself to look culturally out of touch with the American mainstream.
6. It provides a handy excuse for people who were looking for a reason not to vote for Obama but don’t want to think of themselves as bigoted. It hurts Obama especially with the former Reagan Democrats, the culturally conservative, blue-collar workers who could be a promising voter group for him. It also antagonizes people who were concerned about his minister but might have given him the benefit of the doubt after his eloquent speech on race.
7. It gives the Clinton campaign new arguments for trying to recruit superdelegates, the Democratic elected officials and other insiders who get a vote on the nomination. A moderate politician from a swing district, for example, might not want to have to explain support for a candidate who is being hammered as a liberal. And Clinton’s agents can claim that for all the talk of her being divisive, Obama has provided plenty of fodder to energize Republicans.
8. It helps Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) frame a potential race against Obama, even though both of them have found support among independents. Now Republicans have a simple, easily repeated line of attack to use against Obama as an out-of-touch snob, as they had with Sen. John F. Kerry after he blundered by commenting about military funding, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
9. The comments play directly into an already-established narrative about his candidacy. Clinton supporters have been arguing that Obama has limited appeal beyond upscale Democrats — the so-called latte liberals. You can’t win red states if people there don’t like you. “Elites need to understand that middle-class Americans view values and culture as more important than mere trickery,” said Paul Begala, a Clinton backer. “Democrats have to respect their values and reflect their values, not condescend to them as if they were children who’ve been bamboozled.”
10. The timing is terrible. With the Pennsylvania primary nine days off, late-deciding voters are starting to tune in. Obama and Clinton are scheduled to appear separately on CNN on Sunday for a forum on, of all topics, faith and values. And ABC News is staging a Clinton-Obama debate in Philadelphia on Wednesday. So Clinton has the maximum opportunity to keep a spotlight on the issue. Besides sex, little drives the news and opinion industry more than race, religion, culture and class. So as far as chances the chattering-class will perpetuate the issue, Obama has hit the jackpot.
11. The story did not have its roots in right-wing or conservative circles. It was published — and aggressively promoted — by The Huffington Post, a liberally oriented organization that was Obama’s outlet of choice when he wanted to release a personal statement distancing himself from some comments by the Rev. Wright.
12. It undermines Democratic congressional candidates who had thought that Obama would make a stronger top for the ticket than Clinton. Already, Republican House candidates are challenging their Democratic opponents to renounce or embrace Obama’s remarks. Ken Spain, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: “There is a myth being perpetuated by Democrats and even some in the media that an Obama candidacy would somehow be better for their chances down ballot. But we don’t believe that is the case.”
LOL Joe you're guy is turning into a black Dukakis!
joe | April 12, 2008, 11:27pm | #
OK, concern troll. We will.
Conservatives are actually scared of Clinton
Truly, a formidable political mind, with a keen insight into the American political scene.
Oh, and Kneel? "You're"is a contraction of "you are." The word you want is "your."
I don't usually correct something like that, as it's a pretty common typo, but you're (see that?) doing it consistently enough that I'm not sure it's actually a typo.
LOL hes like Dukakis and McGovern and Kerry! Yes, exactly, remember the massive gains in Democratic voter registrations during the Dukakis campaign, and the way McGovern and Kerry attracted so many independents and Republicans during their primary campaigns?
It isn't 2002 anymore, Neil, and Barack Obama isn't John Kerry. The fact that you can conceive of a political attack against a Democrat doesn't mean the public will be swayed by it; and the fact that you can put out that attack doesn't mean Barack Obama is going to run away and duck it.
Did you notice that, as Obama addresses this controversy, he's making a point of using the word "bitter," instead of weaseling away from it? This strategy of declaring something a Democrat says to be beyond the pale, waiting until he runs away from it, and then routing him because he doesn't have any ground to stand on, only works if the Democrat plays along. He's not, but you people still keep trying the same tactic.
Life moves fast, Neil. You're fighting the last war, and you're getting left behind.
alan | April 13, 2008, 3:04am | #
I know what you mean. In another mood, I would likely do the same, as there is an audience to this forum who may find it helpful that the caricatures of libertarianism are addressed when they find themselves in a position of having to explain themselves. More than any other creed, libertarians are expected to explain themselves.
The troll mentality, particularly of the left bent, interest me as well. I've literally been hissed at when I have told leftist that I am a libertarian. There is a subcategory of them that view us as an existential threat in the manner that they don't feel as threatened by SoCons, Neocons, and movement Cons which is strange since they actually do wield political power, and we do not.
Strange and interesting. A smart liberal (and there are plenty of them) will notice that there exist a deep schism between philosophical libertarians and the Republican establishment.
He will put the differences he has with us aside in order to build a coalition built on the mutual interest of both policy, ending the war in Iraq, safe guarding civil rights and civil liberties, and the political advantage that though his candidate may only draw a fraction of the libertarian vote, libertarians do have the ability to throw roughly eight or so percent of the Republican vote to a third party candidate, and thus, McCain gets Nadered.
But the troll lefty is blind to this.
He hates us so much, though no libertarian has ever done anything to him or affected his life in any manner, that these pragmatic political matters will go over his simple minded little head.
It is pathetic really because his thinking is consumed by an irrationality. It is as if he is afraid that if he gives libertarian ideas any consideration the very basis of his belief system will come tumbling down.
When you see MK2 there, have a little
pity and compassion because right there is a man who lacks any confidence in his own persuasive abilities and the value of his own discourse.
GG | April 13, 2008, 2:34pm | #
I have to say, Fisk out-Fisked himself yesterday. Well done.
Give it a look-see, Kneel!
Semantics can't mask Bush's chicanery
This goes beyond hollow laughter. Since when did armies go around 're-liberating'
"Now let's take a look at this piece of chicanery and subject it to a little linguistic analysis. Five years ago, it was victory – ie success – but this has now been transmogrified into a mere "prospect" of success. And not a "prospect", mark you, that has even been glimpsed. No, we have "renewed" and "revived" this prospect. "Revived", as in "brought back from the dead". Am I the only one to be sickened by this obscene semantics? How on earth can you "renew" a "prospect", let alone a prospect that continues to be bathed in Iraqi blood, a subject Bush wisely chose to avoid?
Note, too, the constant use of words that begin with "re -". Renew. Revive. And – incredibly – Bush also told us that "we actually re-liberated certain communities". This, folks, goes beyond hollow laughter. Since when did armies go around "re-liberating" anything? And what does that credibility-sapping "actually" mean? I suspect it was an attempt by the White House speech writer to suggest – by sleight of hand, of course – that Bush was really – really – telling the truth this time. But by putting "actually" in front of "re-liberate" – as opposed to just "liberate" – the whole grammatical construction falls apart. Rather like Iraq.
For by my reckoning, we have now "re-liberated" Fallujah twice. We have "re-liberated" Mosul three times and "re-liberated" Ramadi four times. The scorecard goes on. My files show that Sadr City may have been "re-liberated" five times, while Baghdad is "re-liberated" on an almost daily basis. General David Petraeus, in his pitiful appearance before the US Senate armed services committee, was bound to admit his disappointment at the military failure of the equally pitiful Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Basra. He had not followed Petraeus' advice; which was presumably to "re-liberate" the city (for the fourth time, by my calculation but with a bit more planning).
Indeed, Petraeus told senators that after his beloved "surge" goes home, the US will need a period of "consolidation and evaluation" – which is suspiciously close to saying that the US military will be, as the old adage goes, "redeployed to prepared positions". Ye gods! Where will this tomfoolery end?"
hale | April 13, 2008, 6:50pm | #
Meanwhile, John McCain is measuring for drapes in the Oval Office.
A short play about John McCain
John McCain: "Blue is the color of the canton of the flag of the United States of America. Only blue drapes would be appropriate."
Jim Luton, Republican advisor: "Blue drapes might seem to imply that you betrayed your party in a time of national crisis, sir. May I suggest red?"
John McCain: "Of course, blue drapes would be foolish. Only red drapes are appropriate, befitting America's traditional republic form of government."
Agnes Knowles, retiree from FL: "Red drapes make me feel like the reds have taken over the White House. Why not green? My son is in the military."
John McCain: "Right you are - red communism was a dire threat to global freedom. Green would be suitable, since it is the traditional color of those guarantors of freedom."
Robert M. Foley, Wendy's manager from OH: "Green drapes in the White House! Unbelievable! This is just what those eco whackjobs want, you know, for the President to endorse their terroristic agenda."
John McCain: "Well, I am certainly not an eco whackjob! Purple drapes, I have always been a firm supporter of purple drapes - even when it was unpopular."
Jack Thompson, professional nut: "Purple drapes, eh? Don't think we don't know what that means, Mr. McCain.
Don't think we don't know about your clandestine support for the homosexual agenda!"
John McCain: "No drapes, then! It will be a symbol of the transparency that will be central to my administration!"
???, undisclosed official: "With all due respect, Sen. McCain, we have a saying in the Pentagon: don't write checks your ass can't cash."
John McCain: "Well, tarnation. If only they made America-colored drapes, then it would all be so easy."
joe | April 13, 2008, 8:26pm | #
Chris,
You said "he speaks about them in the same terms that he spoke about the pastor of the church that meant so much to him."
Yes, I did. Watch the speech. He denounces Wright's statements, and a whole field of his opinions, pretty harshly. And yet, he doesn't denounce him as a bigot or reject him as a person. That's the point.
I explained why it was possible for him to call out his grandmother's and Wright's attitudes without calling them bigots, but not possible in the case of Pennsylvanians. Yes, you did, by pointing out the difference between saying that about individuals you know, and saying it about "whole groups."
I then responded by mentioning that Obama DID discuss a "group" - black men of previous generations, like Rev. Wright - and that he did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. He hated the sin and loved the sinner.
Also, "anti-immigrant sentiment" gets paraphrased into a position on immigration; being anti-immigrant is quite different from being anti-immigration. If it came across that way, then I didn't express myself clearly. We are in agreement about this - he was talking both about racism, and about the xenophobic response to immigrants in particular. Absolutely, I wasn't trying to hide that.
Obama was making the point that the shrinking of opportunity and economic hard times facing people in the midwest has caused people to look for scapegoats. It's caused them to blame immigrants, minorities, liberals, atheists, people who aren't like them - and, as Ayn Randian pointed out, "trade."
Chris, do you actually wish to dispute that economic angst in de-industrializing communities leads to a "they trk ur jrbs" response from the locals? One that points the finger at "people not like them?" I think history makes it pretty clear that that is exactly what it does. I didn't think this was controversial.
Sparky | April 14, 2008, 2:16am | #
"It's just undeniable that on balance Democratic voters are smarter."
I don't think I've ever typed LOL (except ironically), but I literally did LOL reading this. It's just baffling that someone can be so completely unaware of their ideological biases as MK2 is.
"sizable majorities in academia, the arts and culture indetify as Democrats."
I wonder if there could _possibly_ be some reason these groups tend to support Democrats. Perhaps a somewhat self-interested reason that has nothing to do with the inherent intellectual superiority of Democrats. Perhaps a reason involving money. If you honestly believe this implies that Democrats are smarter, you're far stupider than the fundies you love to mock. (And I say this as an academic and a liberalish libertarian, that is one for whom social issues are generally somewhat more important than economic ones.)
"The Republican constituency is overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian."
Another blatant lie. You're good at those. There aren't even enough fundamentalist Christians in the country for the Republican constituency to be overwhelmingly fundie.
"Among the Catholic working class, only fanatical single-issues anti-abortionists who kow-tow to the Vatican have remained loyal Republicans. Intelligent, independent-minded Catholics increasingly vote Democratic."
That's weird, I could have sworn that members of my highly educated, pro-choice (at least from a legal standpoint) Catholic family frequently vote Republican and remain doggedly independent, as do many of their congregations. But MK2 has such a reliable record of honesty and accuracy in his blanket statements...I'm so confused....
"Rush Limbaugh counts as a right-wing intellectual."
Yes, and Michael Moore counts as a left-wing intellectual. Of course there are intelligent intellectuals on each side, but why be honest about that when you can score some points by poking at the tubby party hacks?
"It isn't elitism; it's reality."
Only in the very special world of MK2, where any amount of lying, intellectual dishonesty, and self-delusional are perfectly acceptable as long as they're aimed at the big, bad GOP.
You truly are a waste of brain matter, MK2. You're as bad as Neil - superficially more clever, certainly a better speller and typist, but just as intellectually and morally stunted by your glaring ideological biases.
Sean Scallon | April 14, 2008, 4:18pm | #
I’ll play devils’ advocate and defend Obama on this point:
What Obama is saying basically describes American politics from 1964 to today: White, middle-class resentment. This is where the whole term MAR (Middle American Radicals) springs from. And it’s a resentment born of then sense that people who live in small towns, mid-sized factory towns (like the one I grew up in, Beloit, Wisconsin) and urban ethnic neighborhoods have no control over their lives and are at the mercy of trends both economic, cultural and political.
I hate to break the news to everyone, but politics in the U.S. in this day and age is about stoking fears and resentments. Both sides do it. Anyone who believes (as many neocons apparently do) that politics is this grand clash of ideas is foolish and stupid because as we have seen both parties believe in a grand consensus of free trade, foreign interventionism and big governments. Anyone who questions this consensus (like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel for example) is regarded as a loony not to be taken seriously. So politics is not about ideas, it’s about using fear and resentment to motivate different blocs of voters to vote for the candidates that only winds up hurting their interests in the end. Dr. Thomas Fleming said as much in his Chronicles column a few months back. Fear and resentment are very powerful motivators. Obama basically said what political consultants already know. We just don’t like to hear it.
Could he have worded it better? Perhaps. But I’m sure we know of or are folk who “cling” to their Bibles as hard as they can because we have faith and when Charlton Heston (RIP) says “you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers” you can bet he’s clinging to it pretty hard. To “cling” means to hold on tight and I’m sure we either are or know people who hold fast to their guns and Bibles.
And why do they? Because in many cases, it’s all they’ve got. And such persons have every right to be bitter. Bitter about seeing their jobs go to Mexico. Bitter about seeing their kids bused from their neighborhood schools to ones across town. Bitter about seeing their values mocked in the wider culture. Bitter about being lied to about the benefits of NAFTA or the Iraq war and the supposed $1.00 a gallon gas we told we would be paying. Bitter about seeing THEIR kids go to war and die while the elites stay in the club box cheering them on. Bitter about seeing their towns socially engineered with the influx of immigrants without any kind of discussion as to whether this a good idea or not. Bitter about being let down by both the Democrats and Republicans, who supposedly talk good games on the issues they care about but in the end do nothing to help despite such empty promises.
Why else would Hilary Clinton repudiate the one concrete accomplishment of her husband’s Administration, the passage of NAFTA through Congress, unless she knew that bitterness existed? Shouldn’t she be celebrtating NAFTA’s benefits? She knows full damn well if she did that in Pennsylvania and Ohio they’d run her out of town on a rail. So she’ll down a boilermaker and pretend she’s one of the guys, this gal born of the upscale Chicago suburbs, a former Goldwater Girl and Wellsley and Yale Law School graduate. Yes, she truly is the salt of the earth. And of course there’s man-of-the people John McCain, the son and grandson of Admirals who was born on a tropical estate in the Canal Zone and who once told a South Carolina textile worker concerned about keeping his job and I quote “I didn’t know you’re biggest ambition in life is to work in the mill.” How is this any less condescending that what Obama said?
I said the same thing on my post about MARs: MARs fear. And they have good reason to fear, because they don’t know what blow is coming next. What they want more than anything is some sort of stability, so they don’t have to worry if they’re going to be out of work, or if their gun will be confiscated or they can’t pray even in their own churches. Maybe such fears seem irrational, but given the amount of cultural, economic and political changes over the past 45 years that has buffeted such communities, such fears can’t be discounted. The political consultants and politicians and exploit those fears every election cycle, because they know they exists and they know they can exploit them.
So Obama clumsly said what everyone knows to be true but doesn’t want to admit because that would spoil some sort of twisted image of Heartland America being a happy place of pure American values and virtues instead of pockets of seething bitterness. Yes the former can be true but the latter as just as true and if it wasn’t then the populist movement, the KKK, the religious right, the Prohibition movement, the veterans movement after World War II, Harlan County, Kentucky, labor strife, Gordon Kahl and the Posse Comitatus, Tim McVeigh, Oklahoma City and militia movement, the George Wallace, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and David Duke camapaigns, none of these things would have happened.
It’s good in a way that the primaries in Pennsylvania and Ohio and focused on the problems of America’s industrial heartland but those persons covering it have done so in their usual ham-handed and clumsly way, like they were commenting on the antics of an animal exhibit at the zoo. It’s hard for elites in the MSM to truly understand American’s small towns and rural areas because they don’t live there. They don’t know people there. Perhaps a few of them grew up in such places but they decided that working in the mill or on the farm or at the convience store or the auto garage wasn’t for them so they moved out and upwards to Ivy League educations and posh East Side apartments or Georgetown town homes. Maybe its true that Obama, like Daniel Larison said in his blog Eunomia, sees himself as sort of amabassador for MARs to the elites to try an explain why they vote the way they do. But I’ll at least give Obama credit for being more perceptive about American politics than a thousand brain dead political reporters have been.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
