You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they 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.
Pretty harsh stuff, or just self-evident? Typical liberal elitism viewing the average Joe as cattle to be managed or a lament for a loss of hope in American government and ideals? Anti-God, guns, and Old Glory or pro-progress, pro-trade, and pro-tolerance?
Or is a mix of both: a cogent analysis of why many small-town folks feel disenfranchised but also a glimpse into Obama’s big-city feelings towards small-town America?
And does either John McCain or Hillary Clinton have a leg to stand on in condemning these remarks?
Discuss!
April 14, 2008 at 8:55 am
The irony, of course, is that the rust belt is Blue America, not Red America. Obama’s right on one part – these towns have largely been ignored by both parties.
His mistake is to accuse these people of all sorts of nasty things because of it. That smacks of the sort of elitism both parties routinely practice (free trading Republicans are just as guilty of this as city-dwelling Democrats).
April 14, 2008 at 9:04 am
I don’t think you can label free-trade Republicans per se with “elitist” since free trade tends to enrich the Third World. So, if they are guilty of ignoring the needs of blue-collar America (which I dispute) they’re effectively ignoring them in favor of third world citizens.
Not out of altruism, mind you, but because that’s how globalism works.
There certainly is elitism on the Right, though, just think of William F. Buckley of fond memory, Bob Dole, or Dick Cheney (who always looks like he’s just put one over on you)!
But I do think that there’s a real hubris on the left these days. You can see it nicely in that excellent blog “Stuff White People Like” which captures the arrogrance and attitude of the hipeoisie very nicely. I don’t think it’s coincidental that the “white people” there are Obama’s core demographic. His optimism and positive focus attracts them, but so does his urban chic and intellectual bearing.
(Not that there’s anything wrong with big-city hipsters, as long as they remember that being such doesn’t convey any blessed status. But, being human, all too often pride kicks in…)
April 14, 2008 at 9:08 am
I guess I should be open about it: I’m definitely in the “both” camp. I think Obama meant to give an analysis, and has a point, but also that he was expressing how he really feels about “redneck America.”
And while some parts of rural Penn may be traditionally Democratic, they’re definitely redneck!
April 14, 2008 at 9:59 am
AOC: I’m willing to keep your Obama-love secret from all your Republican buddies… I won’t tell anyone, I promise
And bonus points for pointing out the existance of the Democratic Redneck… they’re rare, like the Republican Urbanite, but they still do exist… and Obama has given them reason for offense!
April 14, 2008 at 10:04 am
So, let me get this straight: People say that Obama (and that educated urban Americans in general) hate rural Americans for being ignorant and believing stupid things.
Then, Obama says that rural Americans have PERFECTLY GOOD reasons for some of the seemingly stupid things that they believe. Even when it seems moronic that rural Americans consistently vote against their own economic interests these days, Obama says that this is NOT an indication of stupidity on the part of the aforementioned rural Americans.
Then, everyone takes this as proof that Obama must really hate rural Americans.
Remind me to never try to justify or understand anything that you guys say, as clearly that would indicate that I hate you, too. :-/
April 14, 2008 at 10:19 am
AV: Actually, it goes more like, “Obama says that rural Americans are religous, gun-toting, protectionist, bigots because they are economically disadvantaged and ignored by Washington.”
How that can be construed as something else other than condescending (and potentially offensive, due to the religon comment) is somewhat beyond me.
But then again, I haven’t drunk the Obama Kool Aid yet. Perhaps if I join Barak at Yog-Slothoth, it’ll all become clearer
April 14, 2008 at 10:29 am
There’s what he said and there’s how he said it.
I agree with you about the underlying content: Obama is surely right that economic problems can lead people to seek support in traditional positions (both good and bad). And, as you say, this often leads them to vote for what they see as the party of tradition.
But, apart from the content, the manner in which it was said was classic elitist Democrat. And it attributes too much to the economic factors. Here’s a good Huffington Post article discussing this.
But even if Obama does hold an elitist view, as I suspect he does, it doesn’t stop him from offering good analysis on how economic and social problems have shaped rural views. Nor do either of those prevent his remarks, as stated, from being a bit off base. All three can be true at the same time, and it’s no sin to point that out.
April 14, 2008 at 10:45 am
My main issue with Obama’s statements is that he situates Washington (and more specifically himself) as the sole physician for America’s problems, even though his diagnosis is a worn rehash of traditional liberal discourse. Obama prefers to view the stupidity of rural Pennsylvanians as a response to Washingtonian behavior, when in fact rural Americans espouse a fundamentally different definition of the governments role and their relation to it. Obama must shift his perspective on rural America if he truly wishes to address the issues in Pennsylvania.
As for the Clinton machine and McCain, both of them must place themselves in solidarity with those in rural Pennsylvania. They must, to adopt theological terminology, suffer with those without jobs, internalizing the problems of the working class. The time for five-year plans is over and the leader must become one with his/her constitutes.
April 14, 2008 at 11:28 am
Well, when it comes to the presentation of this message, the issue is the fundamental tension between being a good communicator and being a good politician. Obama tends to err in favor of being a good communicator, which could ironically end his political career someday.
As I think we all know, the first rule of communication is to know your audience. In politics, however, you always have two audiences: the one in the room and the one who will read or hear your soundbite in the news tomorrow. If you forget that you are a politician (and really, wouldn’t it be nice if all politicians would forget that they were politicians once in a while?), then you will say things that connect you with the audience in the room but that won’t be well-received by the audience who hears your soundbite the next day. This quote is a perfect example of that – Obama is trying to connect with urban Americans who are mystified by rural Americans’ apparent embrace of un-American intolerance, and in doing so, he says things that make it sound like he shares the condescending attitudes of his audience.
Of course, if you are a good politician and a lousy communicator (think Hillary Clinton), then you don’t say anything offensive because every word that comes out of your mouth has been filtered by the knowledge that you will be quoted in tomorrow’s news. You also come across as insincere and boring, and your best hope of becoming president will be to cheat or otherwise manipulate the electoral system.
To his credit, McCain seems to make the same mistake that Obama does, where he pays more attention to the people with whom he’s actually talking and less attention to what CNN and the NYT will be saying about it tomorrow. It’s hurt McCain on occasion, like when he meets with the likes of John Hagee or anti-immunization conspiracy theorists and says things that make it sound like he agrees with them. McCain doesn’t hate Catholics and Obama doesn’t hate rednecks, but McCain has tried to reach out to the far right and Obama has tried to reach out to the far left. In doing so, both of them have said things that sound pretty strange when taken out of context.
April 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm
AV –
So do you mean to say that a “communicator” tells different things to different people and expects nobody to put the whole mess together, while a “politician” has a single message for America?
If that’s the case, then I’m for the “politician” every time.
April 14, 2008 at 12:56 pm
So, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, has this become a ready-made McCain campaign ad, as some have theorized:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg
Or perhaps this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F10PYu2-3jo
April 14, 2008 at 1:20 pm
ANM: No, I mean that the same words mean different things when speaking to different audiences, and I mean that it makes sense to look for a common ground with an audience (no matter how loony they may be) before trying to pull them over towards your ideas. A “communicator” speaks in whatever way is needed for his or her audience to understand what he or she means, while a “politician” speaks in a way that no audience can ever be quite sure what he or she means. Note that the communicator’s meaning does not change from audience to audience, but the words might change significantly.
If your goal is to end liberal elitism, then you can’t start out by going to elitist liberals and just telling them to stop being elitist liberals. Actually, you can try, but you will FAIL. (Insert macro here.
) Instead, you have to start by talking to the people who you want to change using the words they already use, even if you wouldn’t ordinarily use those words yourself. Obviously, there are extremes to which you don’t want to go (racial slurs and profanity come to mind). Still, in general, the underlying message of trying to unite Americans will be advanced much more effectively by reaching out to different groups in ways they will appreciate than by staking out some politically correct middle ground and waiting for everyone else to abandon their bigoted or elitist ways and come to you.
April 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm
It seemed to me as an outsider that he was offering reasons for why people were in the hole they were in.
He also listed a few ways that these same people found to explain this hole they were in, and mechanisms they had developed for coping with the situation.
#6 ANM, Offensive, really?
Who was it who persuaded the rural poor to vote for the party who needs their vote but ignores them afterwards. All you need to do is listen to the likes of Falwell, Robertson et al prior to each of the last two elections. Religion and other issues that have become partisan have caused the problems that plague the poor today. Asking for a pardon for religion is truly offensive.
April 15, 2008 at 9:19 am
Thank George Will for another scathing analysis of Obama’s condescension…
April 15, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Actually I think it’s an example of the fact that a really good communicator blowing it. I’m not going to try to put words in his mouth but we all know we say things that come out… really… wrong.
As to the bitterness of many a small town, having grown up in one, I can attest that it’s widespread. There’s a *reason* lots and lots of young people leave. Exactly why this is so I’ve pondered and don’t have any fantastic answers. Obviously it has to do with the fact that there’s not much to do worth decent money in most such towns, but regenerating rural life in a meaningful way is a big problem… the run up in food prices these days “helps”, sort of.
The notion that Hillary “Words Don’t Matter Even Though My Husband Made $51 million Giving Speeches” Clinton as the “PBR candidate” is pretty laughable.
The primary has definitely gone on too long….
April 15, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The primary has definitely gone on too long….
Yeah, and I think a big win for Rush Limbaugh and his “Operation Chaos” crowd who have been trying to prolong the primary. (Whether they had anything to do with it or not.)
While this process could make the Democratic nominee more formidable, it seems to be proving to make the Democratic nominee unelectable. Earlier, I would have said that Hillary had to watch out for this, as embittered Obama supporters could easily have sunk her come November, but now Barack is also vulnerable, for the same reason.
Could this be yet another reprise of the Democrat’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (though I don’t think a race against McCain would ever have been a done deal for any possible Democratic nominee)?
April 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Pithy responses to Obama’s “bitter” rhetoric:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/next_hell_turn_to_guns/
April 16, 2008 at 11:17 am
AOC wrote:
Could this be yet another reprise of the Democrat’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Sure. It’s also just a big outlier in the fact that one of the candidates is truly, utterly bizarre as American presidential candidates go (and I’m not talking about Obama).
(though I don’t think a race against McCain would ever have been a done deal for any possible Democratic nominee)?
Not sure. McCain has a history of pissing off large segments of his likely supporters, too, and the fundamentals for a R victory in November aren’t good: “eight year itch”… recession… unpopular war… candidate well above the age comfort zone of the electorate….
Right now we’re seeing the motion (such as it is) in the Democratic primary because that’s where the action is. The Republican primary stopped a while ago.
This year has been the Year of Variance, though:
-McCain’s amazing comeback.
-HRC’s surprising weakness.
-The fact that whoever is going to be president (barring something really odd) is going to be a sitting senator.
I’m sure there are some others but my brain is so frazzled I can’t think straight right now to see them….
I do think, however, that Obama was pointing out something important, however badly he pointed it out. For instance, one time I was in the grocery store in my decidedly working class neighborhood and was fumbling in my wallet for the store card. Due to the arcane nature of the insurance through my employer, I have something like five different insurance cards and said to the checker “you’d think one would be enough” She said “well at least you HAVE insurance” and then launched into a long tirade about illegal immigrants and how they have insurance and are stealing jobs, etc. This was not an isolated incident. There’s definitely some bitterness….
October 1, 2008 at 3:28 pm
why is it that here lately that black are show theyre true feelings about white people they dont even know they post stuff on youtube about I HATE WHITE PEOPLE and theyre all obama supporter even his preacher hate white people until they need you vote then white are ok we are headed for a bad times here in missouri they have a task force to intimidate people here if we speak out about obama they will persecute this is NAZI tactics