Almost nobody votes for president based on a rational analysis of the issues, and a sober weighing of the candidates' respective positions on them. We bring all kinds of things into the voting booth with us. I would hope, for example, that an African-American would be willing to consider voting Republican or third party this year, based on the issues, but I have to admit that if I were black, and considering the history of black people in this country, I would be hard-pressed not to vote for Barack Obama. Not saying identity politics is right -- generally, it's not -- but it is what it is. The more I talk to older Catholics about what it was like to be a Catholic in the US prior to the 1960s, the more I understand why voting for JFK was so important to them.
I say that because I've been thinking this afternoon about Sarah Palin and the whole question of elitism and populism, in light of several conversations I had in the past few days. I blogged yesterday about the independent Ventura voter, the 55 year old small town Minnesota woman, who is sick of all politicians, but who is enamored of Sarah Palin because she believes Palin can relate to her. What it came down to was not really Palin's views on this or that topic, but on the sense this woman had that Palin's feisty demeanor and experiences were something that she (this woman) could relate to. "She's touchable," the woman said of Palin. Meaning: I understand this woman, and I think she understands people like me. The fact that Palin was being mocked by some for being from a small town really got this voter's goat; this is why in my blog posting, I mentioned that before our talk even turned to politics, this woman talked about how angry she was at the Catholic sex abuse scandal (she noticed an article on my lap about it), and how she understood it in terms of powerful men running over ordinary people. The woman herself spent the first hour of her flight reading a book about the Fundamentalist Mormon cult in West Texas, and told me with real anger in her voice that she couldn't understand why any woman would put up with those men.
Now, I had two other conversations over the course of my trip to St. Paul that shed a certain light on elitism and American politics, especially in media and academia.
The first was a conversation over beer with a man I'll call Jim. Jim, I discovered, is a conservative. Not especially ideological, just a meat-and-potatoes conservative. He works in the media in a northern Democratic city, doing support work -- not reporting or editing. He explained to me that he'd moved to the city a few years back, but that he'd learned quickly to keep his political and cultural views to himself.
"Nobody in my office knows I'm a conservative," he said. "I don't know what would happen if they did. When we go to lunch, the things they say about conservatives are just incredible. They have no idea that their friend is a conservative. They cannot imagine that anyone they know and like could be a conservative. I just sit there. I keep thinking that maybe I should say something, but who knows what would happen to me in the office if I did?"
We talked about how liberal and hostile to conservatives the cultures of most news media offices are. I mentioned to him a friend of mine who is highly placed in television news, who is a closeted Christian, literally terrified that her co-workers will discover that she's a believer -- this, after listening to them routinely trash Christians in news meetings. You live with something like this day in and day out, and you get angry. Jim is militantly pro-McCain, at least as much to spite the people he works with and who look down on and despise people like him. Or so it seemed to me.
And then there was my conversation with Leo. Leo is a college professor, and doesn't identify as a political conservative or a Republican. But he's religiously conservative, and he's disgusted by the nastiness and intolerance from the left, which wholly dominates academia. I didn't get to discern how outspoken he is about his beliefs among his colleagues, but our conversation about Palin on this point centered around the loathing the liberals with whom he works have for pro-lifers in specific and for religious conservatives in general. It grinds him down, dealing with the high-handed contempt these colleagues have for people who believe as he does. And it's made him think hard about voting for the ticket on which Sarah Palin is running.
In this sense, when a person who hears and sees people ganging up on Sarah Palin, and believe they're doing so because she (Palin) is the class of person they (the critics) look down on, it's very, very easy to identify emotionally with Palin. You may resolve to pull the lever for her as a way to strike back at the people you see in your everyday life who look down on you. This has always been the case in democratic politics, but in a therapeutic political culture like ours, one driven not by policy as much as by personality, the dynamic is exacerbated.
Mind you, if I were a closeted gay man working in an office where people made bigoted remarks about gays as a matter of course, and couldn't imagine that they had a homosexual working among them, I might feel strongly that even if I disagreed with Obama on this or that issue, that it was important that I cast my vote for the Democrats to spite conservatives. Elitism goes all kinds of ways. The point I want to make here is simply that the feeling that one is disrespected is powerful motivating factor in casting votes -- and I think it's one reason why Obama is seen as a different kind of politician. He is a conventional liberal in every measurable respect, but he has a gift for talking about his opponents with a modicum of respect and empathy. It is harder, I think, to feel hated and condescended to by him than it is in the case of more typical Democratic politicians, which is why the patronizing stuff he said about small-town and rural voters "clinging" to God and guns was so potentially damaging to his brand.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Of course I understand where you're coming from, but I have a totally different viewpoint. Having professed being non religious, I was harrassed, threatened, and assaulted in high school because I wasn't a Christian. Zealotry on any side is dangerous, and I understand the danger and threats that lurk for those who are *certain* that their beliefs are right and that no opposing beliefs can co-exist without challenge.
I'm up for a debate any day of the week, and I'm always open to listening and discussing belief and faith. However, you'll never get me to trust anyone who is certain that they are right on a matter of faith. and I have an inherent distrust of anyone who views the world purely in black or white.
My fear is that Palin is someone who believes the world is purely black and white. That she will have the same... certainty that the current president have. and have an alarming lack of judgment when it comes to dealing with complex issues. To me, She is a net negative as she reminds me of the people who would shove me, threaten me, or assault me because they were sure it was right to do so.
No matter what side you're on. when a group is certain they're right, and they think of you as less than them, they will treat you poorly, confident that they are right in doing so.
I suppose I'm putting this out there because I don't see the same things you see and hear. I tend to see the opposite with my friends and myself. But in general I agree with your broader point: Zealots are evil, no matter the reason for the zealotry.
I'm gonna throw some red meat out to the left-leaning folks on this blog tonight:
I'm sitting here watching McCain's speech, and I'm reminded of many of the reasons I was so dispirited about his nomination in the first place.
This is without a doubt the worst-staged convention (Democrat or Republican) I can think of in my lifetime. Good grief, did they have to revive the green monster screen again behind McCain? Are they purposefully trying to make him look like he is standing in a hospital ward? And why on earth would anyone think it was a good idea to put a line in the bio video that McCain is "a hothead"?
Overall, tonight's speeches were boring, meandering, you name it. Kind of a good metaphor for the entire party at this point.
McCain gracefully handled the protestors (I guess GOP candidates just don't the courtesy of freedom of speech anymore). And McCain's closing comments about his POW experience were obviously powerful. "I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner" - that's amazing stuff. But overall McCain delivered a very underwhelming acceptance speech.
Last night was positively electric - tonight is like taking an Ambien. Very sleepy now.
Well, only thing I will say is..
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you never get interrupted, or people don't disagree with you. And it has little to do with the actions of private citizens, but it does with the actions of government.
It may have been rude, and very likely unproductive. But it had little to do with freedom of speech.
Doug,
We who see ourselves as peacemakers can find comfort in the notion that it is our efforts that count. Results are out of our control, because true peace must come from both sides of a conflict. If there is shame in our "failures", it belongs to the warring parties.
Keep on keepin' on, good sir.
Doug Cramer
Of course, the reality of community organizing couldn't be more different, and I think Obama would be smart to take the attacks head-on once the convention is over. He should talk about how, as a community organizer, he worked to help unemployed steel workers (many of them white) deal with economic hardship. Indeed, Rudy's and Palin's attacks on "community organizers" should join Phil Gramm's comments about a "nation of whiners" and McCain's losing track of his houses as just more evidence that Republicans are out of touch when it comes to the economy.
What he really should do is point out that Republicans have been saying for years that (churches and) community organizations can replace government help, and yet he got attacked (both via his church and) for being 'just' that sort of 'community organizer' instead of working in politics. (Might want to leave out the church bit, I dunno.)
Logical conclusion: Palin would rather people go into politics and use government money to help people, as opposed to working for private non-profits to help people locally. You know...like she did when she got all those earmarks as mayor.
Seriously, at some point the disconnect between what Republicans say and what Republicans say at other times is...gah. Do they not see this? Do they not get how they keep hurting their long-term strategies with this panicked gibberish?
At some point, it was looking like Obama knew some sort of jujitsu and was just using their own attacks against them, but at this point Republicans seem determined to attack Obama by cutting off their own arms and hurling them at him. Which is perhaps the least useful style of martial arts imaginable.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.