Elitism and its political uses

"The point I want to make here is simply that the feeling that one is disrespected is powerful motivating factor in casting votes"

Amen to that. Palin gave a very good speech, but it was not the exemplar of rhetorical perfection that a lot of people are making it out to be. The media set this up (perfectly for Palin) by trying to dredge up every ridiculous pseudo-scandal they could: the cultural sneering was almost palpable (I am willing to place a bet with anyone here that at least one major Democratic / liberal figure is going to flat out call her "poor white trash" before the campaign is over.) I would have to choke down bile to vote for McCain, but at some point last night, had I heard anyone closeby make some pithy bit of snark about Gov. Palin, I might very well have hit them.

The phenomenon Rod describes here sheds light on the tendency of liberals, progressives, leftists, et al not to see that they are just as brutish and nasty toward "the other side" as the other way around. They don't see it, they don't hear it, because so many of those whom they subject to his unwitting abuse don't show how much it hurts, because they can't talk back with out the risk of losing their jobs. This is certainly the case if the media and in academia, two worlds I know quite a bit about. There are people there who must bury themselves as deeply in their own kinds of closets as anyone ever has to do for any reason in Middle American in general or the Bible Belt in particular, two world that I also know quite a bit about. The only thing positive about all the heat being generated by responses to the attacks on Sarah Palin is that it just might serve to shed some light where it needs to be shed -- in the eyes of those who spend more time scrutinizing Others -- and I mean that in the academic-theoretical sense of Others -- than they spend scrutinizing themselves. Have a nice day.

Sooo-- the mountain west and Alaska are now part of the south?

Your friend in the news media who listens to her colleagues regularly trash "Christians": I wonder if they really trash "Christians" as such, or a particular kind of Christian, that represented by the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson/Ted whatshisname. Namely, the preening face of conservative white male Christianity regularly thrusting itself into the TV spotlight. Do you think they mocked John Kerry because he was a Christian? Or Obama? Again, just as all "the left" doesn't act monolithically, neither do all Christians.

Similarly re the man who feels the hatred of pro-life people. It's been stated earlier this week in your comments thread, but this is projection more than reality. I am pro-choice. I do not hate pro-lifers. I don't know anyone personally who hates pro-lifers. Yet here in your beliefnet community, you will find the grossest bile spewed against prochoicers (hate babies/hate life/won't let my kids play with them/etc.).

Connie in Wisconsin, who has noticed another generic "Connie" posting here, and needs a new moniker

It's interesting to me that someone like "hysterics" always replies to a thoughtful post from Rod with nearly the same opening retort: "Got it Rod" ... and then proceeds to set up a bunch of straw men and knock them down, usually consisting of stereotyped mimicry of what a feverish leftist thinks a conservative thinks.

As if that cancels out any thoughtful discussion, or serves as any kind of reply.

"The point I want to make here is simply that the feeling that one is disrespected is powerful motivating factor in casting votes"

I agree and you can bet your life that the Rovians running the McCain campaign will milk this for everything its worth. Rod is already doing his part to grease the wheels.

The main questions about Palin are real and have nothing to do with media or cultural elitism.

1) Does she have the experience and judgment necessary to be Vice President? This is PARTICULARLY important given that John McCain is 72 years old and has previously been diagnosed with cancer. Why can these question be asked of Obama and not of Palin?

2) What was Palin's role in the firing of former Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan?

3) What are Palin's opinions about the most important issues of this election? Immigration? Economic Policy? Pakistan? North Korea? Health Care? Climate Change? When will she sit down for interviews with someone besides Fox News?

Rod, do you ever have these wandering conversations with liberals? Do you hear some of the things conservatives say about us, even hear. My favorite was from a few posts back, where one conservative commentator that liberals didn't know how to love anyone. That they literally did not love!

If you think that liberals have some lock on hostility, you really aren't bothering to read even your own boards, let along the news. This place has become so vilely toxic in recent days I'm loathe to come back here. Christians urging on more cultural conflict, "ears back, fanged bared", "bring it on".

The only spirital lesson being taught here anymore is my daily practice in working not to hate those who clearly hate me.

JPL,

Grace be unto you, and peace, from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

I probably disagree with you mightily on some stuff, but I sure don't hate you, and I welcome your well-timed comment.

1) Does she have the experience and judgment necessary to be Vice President? This is PARTICULARLY important given that John McCain is 72 years old and has previously been diagnosed with cancer. Why can these question be asked of Obama and not of Palin?

Who said that was so? I tend to look at it this way, if you wish to question Palin on her experience and credentials, you'd better be ready with some response when the question is turned on Obama.

Never mind missing out on one important fact: McCain's mother is 96. Maybe he's built from the same hearty stuff.

Anyone concerned about Ms. Palin's attempt to fire the librarian who wouldn't ban books? I find this abuse of her power very troubling.
That she tried this as a mayor means that I wouldn't want her a heartbeat away from the most powerful job on earth.

Anyone concerned about Ms. Palin's attempt to fire the librarian who wouldn't ban books?

Not without specifics, no.

from the Washington Independent
By Laura McGann 9/3/08 5:00 AM

ANCHORAGE — Tuesday afternoon, the Mat-Su Frontiersman, in Wasilla, hosted me in their offices so I could dig through their print archives to get a sense of Gov. Sarah Palin’s tenure as mayor there.

I photocopied one story, from December 1996, about Palin’s run-in with Wasilla’s director of libraries, Mary Ellen Emmons. The article is in line with what several commenters mentioned here a few days ago. Emmons says that in October and December, 1996, the year Palin took office, the new mayor asked her if she would tolerate censorship of library books.

According to the article, Palin’s response to the accusation was to say that the discussions were “in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy.”

The next month Palin left a letter on Emmons desk asking her to resign. It said, ”I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ….”

The Anchorage Daily News reported at the time, as did the Frontiersman, that the conflict was over whether to restructure the local library and museum operations. After some discussions, Palin seems to have decided Emmons was willing to toe the line. She kept her job as library director.

Never mind missing out on one important fact: McCain's mother is 96. Maybe he's built from the same hearty stuff.

McCain's grandfather passed on at 61, and his own father at 70...

JPL,

Thanks for your 4:58 post. I agree heartily. I put up a long post yesterday on the "Lock and Load" thread, but it took for ever to clear for approval and probably was mostly missed so I'll post again.

I'm going to bow off the site for the same reasons you mention, perhaps lurk. Until recently, the community of commentators here seemed one of the few places where liberals, conservatives and eccentric independents like myself could have an open, intellectually honest discussion, but no more. After days of being slammed as a liberal for opposing Palin, with people responding mostly only to the most passionate posts on either side, I feel this is not a place for someone who strives (and fails constantly) to be a peacemaker.

I just don't understand Rod's attraction to Palin, as he hasn't really provided much justification for it beyond emotion. But I look at her, and I see someone almost completely "other" to my own experience. Rod mentioned the importance of her rootedness in place and faith and family, but to my eyes all it seems to have bred in her is self-righteousness and a carefully guarded compassion only shown to those who are part of her tribe.

What does Palin have to say to a suburban-raised Northeastern man from a divorced family who married outside his race, has great sympathy for pacifists and environmentalists even though he does not count himself among them, has worked in the past with and has great respect for librarians and community organizers, values intellectual curiosity, and is a small business owner teaching his sons the value of collaboration and humility? What does Palin have to say to me?

Palin’s Alaskan upbringing is as foreign to me as Obama’s Hawaiian one. Her church is as much a part of the fringe of Christianity preaching a corrupted Gospel, from a traditional Orthodox Christian point-of-view, as his. Her family, with their two high-powered careers and high-price sporting pursuits, is as foreign to me as his with their Chicago mansion and board positions.

I keep asking myself: Why do people with whom I feel at home with, like the conservatives on this board, feel so much more like they’re part of Palin’s tribe than Obama’s? I don’t believe it is primarily issues, or political positions. After all, we don’t know most of Palin’s and the ones we know hardly seem anymore crunchy than Obama’s. As one of the charter members of the crunchy con gang (Rod interviewed my wife and I for the original Granola Conservatism NR cover story) I’ll stack teaching the urban poor to take responsibility for their communities and get involved in the local political process against “drill baby drill” any day. And I don’t even think it’s mostly abortion, as I’m convinced that progress on that front is inevitable, thank God, and most thinking people realize the very small role the federal government has to play.

So what’s left? To be frank, all I can think of is race. Hawaii and Alaska may be equally distant from the mainstream American experience, but there’s no doubt that whites are still much closer to that experience than blacks, regardless of geography. I don’t think that race is the only factor, or even for most folks the primary factor. And I doubt the role that it plays in people’s thinking is very conscious. But I hope even the most rabid Palin fanboys and girls here will be able to see how someone like me can sincerely, and without malice, wonder if the Hawaiian Democrat was white and had brought a local-empowerment and personal-responsibility witness for years to the urban poor, and the Alaskan Republican was black, loved the Trumps and had a past checkered with accusations of using political office for personal gains and vendettas, would my fellow crunchy cons be as enthusiastically with the Alaskan and against the Hawaiian as they are now?

I’m not calling anyone a racist. But, I’m the father of three boys as black as Obama, and I’ve acquired over the years a certain sensitivity to racial stereotypes. Heck, I even still have a few myself.

I don’t know what is driving the animus on this board. I do know that it is wicked, and in no way serves the true, the good and the beautiful.

BTW, here’s a couple of great quotes from Rod. The links are back on the “lock and load” thread.

"To say one is anti-elitist, whether you're on the left or the right, is to assume that The People Are Always Right. Which is nonsense. Does anybody believe that? Americans of all political stripes are quick to indulge in populist rhetoric when it suits their interests."

"Isn't it the case that most American political fights are about culture because the economic arguments lack definitive lines, and are harder to think clearly about?"

"For religious conservatives like me, not only is the kind of theology preached at Obama's church racist, but it is a dangerous corruption of the Gospel."

Lord have mercy.

Doug

ANCHORAGE — Tuesday afternoon, the Mat-Su Frontiersman, in Wasilla, hosted me in their offices so I could dig through their print archives to get a sense of Gov. Sarah Palin’s tenure as mayor there.[snip]

Hmm, interesting. I've got the WI suggesting it might be over censorship, while the Anchorage Daily News suggests it has more to do with "merg[ing] the library and museum operations."

But what about Wasilla's police chief?

Rod, I'm sure you realize as JPL points out that the derision goes both ways.

I live in a small college town populated almost entirely by lefty idealogues, but with work and other endeavors I am entirely surrounded by right wing idealogues. Shew, it's rough.

My view is that both sides are dismissive of the other but the flavor of it is defintely different. The lefties I know are seething with anger at W and Rove, but the anger goes no further than that. The lefties are elitist and arrogant. They do not hate Palin-types so much as think that they are idiots and not worth their time. The right-wingers I know don't seem to be arrogant as much as *angry* and resentful. They *love* Rush Limbaugh. Their hostility is spread very wide and includes every college professor, everyone in the media, every pro-choicer, every climate scientist, every atheist, every democrat, every Arab, and everyone who gets a welfare check. Wow. It is stagerring.

I wonder, hysterics, just what clever point you think you're making by the use of "libruhls" and "lessin". If you really cannot spell, I suggest you quit humiliating yourself by attempting to play with the grownups. If you can spell, but choose not to, consider how foolish it makes you look to those who might actually hear you out, if you ever bothered to offer an argument. I, for one, refuse to give any credence at all to name callers, whether Rethuglican or Democrap, and deliberate and cutesy ad hominems via spelling errors put you in that camp.

"Despite earlier promises to the contrary, Sarah Palin is now refusing to cooperate with the trooper-gate investigation. Her lawyer now says she will refuse to be deposed unless the head of the current investigation relinquishes control and hands the investigation over to the state Personnel Board made up of three of Gov. Palin's appointees." Change is coming to Washington!

Bob B! I hear you there, brother! It stinks don't it?

I know a lot of Catholics who, in their reasonable abortion-trumps-all mentality, have let their enthusiasm for the pro-life republicans cause them to completely ignore every other moral issue. Just war, torture,... nothing else is as important as abortion - and this is where they get wacko - so nothing else matters at all.

Rod gets it though. And that's why I come here.

No, the Mat-Su Frontiersman reported that might be over censorship. The Mat-Su Frontiersman is the paper for the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and Wasilla AK - Sarah Palin former Mayor.

Ah, so it is.

Nice try...

And here I thought we were having a nice discussion about an event in Gov. Palin's career.

Now, couple that with the fact that you aren't owning your words. My question to you is this: why should I take you seriously? Was I wrong to have an open mind? Furthermore, what assumption about my political leanings are you working from?

Actually, just the fact of choosing Palin tells us a lot about who John McCain identifies with.
Posted by: Ann | September 4, 2008 6:11 PM

McCain's "joke" tells me a lot more about who he identifies with.

The "bitter" comment was actually made in sympathy and actually resonates in some rural areas. The $5 million comment was an obvious joke, though an unwise one. It probably would never have resonated if it weren't for McCain flubbing the housing thing.

Most people have better things to worry about than anything in the above paragraph, however.

"Just from what little I've seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word "uppity," Westmoreland said, "Uppity, yeah."

Negro please.

I guess it's been decided the GOP doesn't want black people voting for their party... ever.

Jeff S,

You miss the whole point.

The sort of class-based and religion-based bigotry that's being discussed here may *seem* less prevalent than bigotry based on sexual orientation or whatever else, but that is only because we have -- thankfully -- reached a point in our history where other kinds of bigotry are publicly acknowledged and discussed, while bigotry based on religion and class is still not so widely acknowledged and still tends not to be discussed very often, and certainly not very often in fair-minded and sophisticated ways.

Frankly, as a Christian, I would prefer that we move toward some fundamental *moral* critique of bigotry *in general* rather than the much-less-useful *political* critique of bigotry in which we are currently engaged -- a critique that we have circumscribed to the limited and parochial terms of atavistic appeals to identity, to one's identification with one's *specific* tribe, instead of one's identification with others in general, based on a shared humanity.

The hypocrisy of the Obama campaign -- a hypocrisy laid bare again and again, but most dramatically this week with the assaults on Sarah Palin and her family -- is that the campaign promised us all a national reconciliation in which "we" transcend "our" tribal bigotries, when in fact that campaign has been founded all along every bit as much on tribal bigotry as any other we have seen from the Nixon-Agnew campaign of 1968 on down to today.

Obama's disquisition on "bitter" Pennsylvanians was just one of many cases in which the "dog whistle" of class-based and religion-based bigotry, sounded again and again to his most fervent supporters by his own campaign, began to be acutely audible to *all* sorts of dog with all sorts of ears -- and audible especially to the sorts of dog who live in places like rural Pennsylvania.

What's happened in the last few days is that the dogs toward whom Obama blows his whistle have -- to paraphrase a poster on another recent thread -- taken on a *feral* stance toward Sarah Palin, a stance in which their "ears" have been pulled "back" and their "fangs" have been "bared."

This has not been a pretty thing to watch, nor has the response from those dogs being snarled at been pretty too watch.

But to pretend, as you seem to do, that no ears have been pulled back and that no fangs have been bared -- either now or at any other time -- to any great degree by those tribes inclined to support Obama's campaign is just a wee bit much.

Richard B., what Westmoreland said was despicable. McCain needs to publicaly ream him out immediately. There's no room for such language in our political discourse.

Rufus,

Thanks for the reasonable critique. But I have to differ with this:

"Obama's disquisition on "bitter" Pennsylvanians was just one of many cases in which the "dog whistle" of class-based and religion-based bigotry, sounded again and again to his most fervent supporters by his own campaign, began to be acutely audible to *all* sorts of dog with all sorts of ears -- and audible especially to the sorts of dog who live in places like rural Pennsylvania."

This seems pretty typical of critiques of Obama, but I just don't hear it, and neither do many others. I lived in New Hampshire mill towns, and know and love a lot of folks there. And they're f***in' bitter. Most of them will happily tell you so, at length, and then talk about the solace they get from shooting and complaining, while they ring you up at Wal-Mart, or wait with you at the bus stop. Some of them will even vote for Obama. I think you and those who agree with you are imagining the "dog whistle", and don't see how this could possibly move past a "he said she said" stand off.

Bless,
Doug

If you think that liberals have some lock on hostility, you really aren't bothering to read even your own boards, let along the news.

JPL, of course I have no view that the hostility only comes from one side. I was only seeking to illuminate why the "elitism" charge strikes a resonant chord with many Palin supporters. I thought I indicated in my post that I can empathize with why liberal voters in certain contexts feel exactly the same way: voting against those whom they think, rightly or wrongly, despise them as a class.

So much of the conflict in American politics is about class, period. But we don't know how to talk about that in America, so we find other ways to do it.

Is it class per se, Rod? I know plenty of firmly middle class people who live in the suburbs who fall more into the category you'd call liberal and tend to talk down religious people and people who live in the country. That actually decribes my father's entire family. Meanwhile, my mother's side is firmly religious (their church does not even allow members in good standing to own a TV). They are also firmly middle class.

I think the correct division is regional, specifically urban vs rural. That's no less important or valid a divide. It certainly has been around longer than modern class system, which emerged out of a previous system a couple of hundred years ago.

BTW, would any of the Andrew Sullivan critics present please offer a thoughtful critique of this post from him? Sounds spot-on to me:

"After viewing it live and twice on TV Ross weighs in on Palin's speech:

Instead of opening new vistas for conservative politics, it reinforced the perception - which is unfair, but not all that unfair - that the only thing John McCain's GOP has to offer on the domestic front is a big yes to drilling, an end to earmarks, and a big no to Obama's tax increases. It's possible that this is enough of a message to win this Presidential election; it's definitely not enough of a message to rebuild the GOP over the long haul. Sarah Palin gave the kind of speech she had to give, and good for her. But I hope she has some other kinds of speeches in her.

I feel for Ross as I feel for serious conservative foreign policy thinkers right now. This pick is so unserious in so many ways it is as much an insult to intelligent conservatives as it is to the rest of the country.

And I have one nagging question: we are told she is a reformer. Can anyone tell me anything she has actually reformed?

Yes, she won against an aging, decrepit corrupt Republican party establishment on populist boilerplate. But this was simply in her own self-interest as a rising Pentecostalist politician. Yes, she championed new ethical standards for pols - but her record in that matter is no different than Obama's, only he did it on a national stage. She then gave everyone in the state a big check from oil revenues. I could do that. So could you.

Is that it? The more I reflect on this decision by McCain, the more insane and reckless and shallow it gets. I've always respected McCain, even when I disagreed with him. I find it very hard to square that with this decision."

More very insightful thoughts from Sullivan:

"All the revelations about Obama took place over a very long period of time - months and months. Because Palin is a total unknown and because her past is so colorful, to say the least, and because there are only two months before the election, the media has jumped all over it. That's our job. They have compressed in five or six days what was raised about Obama over twelve months. Of course it seems tougher right now. But I don't believe it is. If Obama's family were as colorful as Palin's, you can bet the press would have been all over it. If Obama's sister had nine kids from two fathers neither of whom she is currently living with, do you really think the press would not have written about it? This is an illusion created by a very compressed schedule and a totally unvetted candidate who is utterly unready to be president of the United States. And it's being sustained by the Republican machine because at this point, targeting the media is all they've got."

Can you imagine if Obama had been plucked from his first year in the Senate as Kerry's running mate two months before the 2004 election? Can you imagine if his entire story - his ancestry, education, wife, job history, friends, church, and every public video clip - came out in 4 days, like Palin's has? And you think Mother Sarah has gotten a little rough press?

Doug,

Thanks for the reply.

We could swap anecdotes back and forth all night.

[For what it's worth, I grew up in the rural Deep South and have lived in both the rural Midwest and the urban Northeast and my experience has been quite different from what you describe]

The fact that it's possible to disagree about what Obama had to say is *precisely* why he shouldn't have said.

He over-generalized; he engaged in stereotyping, in other words.

One can offer anecdotal evidence to justify every sort of bigotry and stereotype under the sun.

There is always *some* truth in such things, though frequently not very much, or, at the least, much less than is being claimed by the bigots and retailers of stereotypes.

I'm not going get bowed up about it, because I've done so much bowing up myself in the past few days that I'm exhausted and rather heartsick now.

But that said, I must say -- and I say it with all due respect and for your benefit -- that it's extremely patronizing for you to tell me and those whose experience jibes with my own that we are only imagining the dog whistle that we hear very clearly being sounded.

It's precisely that sort of patronizing attitude that got Obama into trouble to begin with.

He learned no lesson from the trouble that he got himself into in San Francisco with regard to Pennsylvanians, so he's gotten himself and his supports into more and more trouble of a similar sort as time has gone on -- to the point that he has now put himself and them in the position of possibly throwing away an election that they had every chance to win without even breaking a sweat.

You seem like a decent sort, so I sincerely hope that you, at least, will learn something from how some of us -- many of us -- have responded to all of the assaults on Sarah Palin, her family, and on ourselves and others like us these past few days.

Rod:

Last bit of uninvited constructive criticism before I head off for the annual burning of Zozobra.

You've got a stylistic tic that I think you should consider weeding out of your writer's toolbox:

"of course I have no view that..."

As an editor (and yes I have a lot of admiration for professional writers like you who are willing to perform your craft on a blog without the net of an editor) I'd strike the "of course" every time, particularly on more passionate topics like these. It comes across as an insult, akin to the sulky teen with his "I know." The implication is that anyone who didn't get your obvious meaning/intent must be thick-headed.

I'd recommend you think a little more about the difference between what "of course" you believe or intend, and the judgments of your audience, which will only ever have either your one piece in front of them to develop an opinion of what you mean or intend, or (even worse!) someone who has read much of your writing, but has never met you. It's a good exercise for any writer, one I've benefited from much myself (and still have a long way to go); and I don't mean to suggest that "of course" you shouldn't fall in to verbal tics or need to work on your reputation/audience opinion. All writers do.

BTW, if you haven't already I'd suggest you see about getting Beliefnet moving on getting you some cool audience demographic tools. It would be fascinating to do a survey of the Crunchy Con readership.

Bless,
Doug

On race, smart words from The Atlantic's Coates:

"This is why these dudes have no credibility with black people--or any people who aren't white. Would you listen to anything coming out a party where one congressman calls Obama "boy", and another calls his wife "uppity?""

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/uppity_obama. php

I'm waiting for Mother Palin, defender of those with special needs, to rip Westmoreland for the "uppity" remark.

Rufus,

"He over-generalized; he engaged in stereotyping, in other words."

Yes, I agree completely. It was certainly a poor choice of words, and fairly leaves Obama open to doubts about whether there is a poor set of ideas behind them.

"But that said, I must say -- and I say it with all due respect and for your benefit -- that it's extremely patronizing for you to tell me and those whose experience jibes with my own that we are only imagining the dog whistle that we hear very clearly being sounded."

Yes, I expect we both feel similar. "Of course," to use Rod's phrase, Obama is playing culture/identity politics through a covert use of language. "Of course" he's not. Patronizing all the way 'round, which is why I called it a "he said she said" bind.

Bless,
Doug

Rod's post is a good and thoughtful one, and does explain a lot of the emotions here, I think.

I would like to point out that it goes both ways. I have worked most of my career teaching in public schools and small, technical two-year colleges in a very "red" state. In my region, those tend to be very conservative institutions ("liberal" academics would be mainly at one or at most two of the larger state universities). I have sat in many a room listening to the iniquities of liberals and near deification of Ronald Reagan and George W. I never have feared being known as "liberal" (which, relatively speaking, I would be in such contexts, though I consider myself moderate). However, I usually have kept my mouth shut to avoid unpleasantness, and have tended to speak freely only to the one or two other fellow moderate/liberals that occasionally might be there.

The point is that it does cut both ways, and it's not just "inquisitorial" behavior on the part of the Left. The Right is quite good at it, too.

Doug:

What does Palin have to say to a suburban-raised Northeastern man from a divorced family who married outside his race, has great sympathy for pacifists and environmentalists even though he does not count himself among them, has worked in the past with and has great respect for librarians and community organizers, values intellectual curiosity, and is a small business owner teaching his sons the value of collaboration and humility? What does Palin have to say to me?

While sympathizing (and I find myself liking Palin, although I have to admit that she's a divisive choice for some very solid reasons), at the other end of the spectrum is a man like my stepfather (a Wasilla resident), who spent a good hour the morning Palin was announced telling my wife and me (my wife a PhD student in Germanic Studies, me an employee of the same university who is in general a humanities dilettante) about how for a lot of people, the real world doesn't involve higher education, ideals, and abstractions; it deals with things that are measurable and concrete, and that for somebody like him, it makes no sense for the government to be paying billions of dollars for a higher education system that doesn't, to his way of thinking, produce much that is either measurable or concrete. It may be a social investment, he said, but it's also a luxury, one that for somebody who might be an auto mechanic or a pilot or an electrician or an oil worker or something like that, is increasingly not worth what society pays for it. "That's the real world," he said. My wife got very upset with him, and he apologized when he realized he had gone too far, but still said, "Somebody in Kentucky is going to care a lot more about where their next gallon of gas is coming from than whether or not they can learn German."

That's a totally different world from the one in which my wife and I live. That's undeniable. This fact does not, however, render either world illegitimate or invalid. What does Obama have to say to somebody like my stepfather, honestly? Does that make Obama more or less of a divisive choice? Does it matter?

I'm beginning to think that the United States is simply too big to truly be "united".

Richard

P. S. Lurking's not so bad. It's what I do most of the time. It keeps my heart rate lower.

Doug,

I don't see how I've patronized you.

I didn't dispute your anecdotal experience.

And I didn't claim that your or anyone else's perception of bigotry is simply "imaginary" or, in other words, delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic.

All I've done is to ask that you show others the same respect that you would want to have extended to yourself.

If the Obama campaign and some of its supporters in the media and elsewhere had done that themselves all along, we would be at a less bad pass than the one where we find ourselves now.

Bigotry based on religion and/or social-class is -- unfortunately -- *real*, as some of us know all too well, some of us who must contend with it *each and every day of our lives*.

The Obama campaign and some of its supporters have indulged in this sort of bigotry again and again.

I take no pleasure from the fact that that is so.

But it *is.*

I grew up in a hard-core Republican family--fourth generation. Until a few years ago (the W Bush era) I was also a staunch Republican. I'm also a devout Christian. I would classify myself as a Conservative but with environmental concerns. Probably a paleo-con, given the current state of the conservative movement.

Problem is: Whenever I disagree with my family about the most minute details of the Bush presidency or express my concern over Bush policies, I'm immediately branded a traitor, a liberal, etc. And not just in jest. And they immediately begin to castigate the "other" as if I'd just expressed some great degree of support for a "liberal" position.

I've also experienced this with other hard-core right wingers. Especially when I've posted rational issues-oriented comments on blogs. I've been castigated because I dared express something beyond the party line. What it's made me begin to believe is that there is no room for any nuance, no room for any middle-ground in the current Republican Party.

I have been around plenty of "liberal" gatherings (I'm a former college professor, with a PhD, and, currently, a lawyer). Not once during those times did I feel that my Christian beliefs or my values was being put down when I had discussions and debates over government policies. We may disagree but my opinion was respected because I was able to express myself and support my positions in a meaningful way.

My experience has been that the GOP has become the party of intolerance. I gravitated to this blog because I was looking for a willingness to consider that not all issues are as black and white as the GOP and Christian Conservative Right seems to believe.

I was hoping this MIGHT change with Sarah Palin but her speech (both as delivered and as written, based on a transcript I've read) was spiteful and mean-spirited and contained very little substance about what she and McCain intend or hope to accomplish. Instead, I heard the party line in the fashion developed by Rove.

Until he got the nomination, McCain certainly seemed willing to consider novel approaches. Now, he, also, has become what he criticized.

I'm hoping his speech tonight will clear up some of the confusion I have about his vision for this country, and how he hopes to achieve.

If McCain does not deliver, I will be officially abandoning the Republican Party, at least for four years.

Thank you,
SM

Interesting posts. Guess I am in a very small minority. I would prefer to talk issues. I do not care one whit if a politician is able to convincingly look as though they understand me. I assume politicians are politicians. I assume that all the candidates do and say most of what they do for political purposes. To me, Palin just looks like a gifted, opportunistic politician.

Over the last few days it has become clear that no one is even interested in issues. Palin lies about the bridge to Nowhere. Who cares, she is one of us. Her windfall profits tax, her level of interest in and knowledge of economics, foreign policy, health care issues are irrelevant. She is one of us is the only issue.

I really just do not understand identity politics. It does not seem to be working very well for us. Huge debt, with Medicare and Medicaid around the corner. Afghanistan not going especially well. The Surge worked, yet we cannot leave. If you actually read anything on Iraq it looks more and more like we will just have a new strongman government there anyway. Iran beckons. Russia, China. Health care. Infrastructure. Energy. Guess we get what we deserve.

Steve

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.

"The main questions about Palin are real and have nothing to do with media or cultural elitism."

i.e., is she the "pitbull" or the "barracuda?" And if she is such a pitbull or a barracuda then why oh why do some of those among us worry about her being thrashed so much?

I heard nothing but "fight, fight, fight tonight."

So don't expect anything less.

I've heard two reactions to McCain's speech: one that it's boring, another that it was very good and will appeal to centrists. I won't be able to watch it until it comes online. Based on comments so far, it seems really at odds with the tone of last night. My question is, will he pull enough viewers to get his own moderate message past Palin's red meat, which 37 million saw? And will anyone believe it after last night?

At any rate, this sounds a lot more like the McCain I respect.

DC @ 10:13 PM writes:

"And the single biggest thing they have in common is what people ask them for -- everyone who comes to the Administration, Republican or Democrat, every high-powered lobbyist and lawyer who represents them -- they all ask for the same thing: special treatment for them only. Everyone wants barriers to entry for the competition and limits to liability for the people they hurt. They say they don't want regulation but somehow they always ask for more. "

This is why the "American experiment" has failed.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

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.

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.