Kaus lists four problems with the Obama gaffe. Here's the fourth:
Yes, he's condescending. It's not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they'll change and become as enlightened as Obama the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That's the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort--not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views--is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.I think that pretty much nails it.
But I know you guys think that Obama can do no wrong, that he isn't condescending, just truthful (thus proving exactly what the right thinks of you) and won't be swayed by anything anyone says. That's fine but I bet he'll say something again that will be considered condescending by everyone but the Obama supporters (Obama will come out and apologize for it but the supporters will still defend him just as they are doing now), and I bet you guys will say the exact same things you are saying now. I'm going to note this post so I can link to it when it happens (and I will be more than happy to apologize and link to this post if he doesn't make another elitist blunder).
And Kristol makes this point:
I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.I guess this might be the fruit of the black liberation theology (which is Marxist in nature) that Obama has been imbiding over the last 20 years.
My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that 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.”This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:
“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”
Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”
Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true, but it’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.
But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.
And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”
(via)
And then there's this:
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns “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." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure.(via)Partisan and ideological differences suggest that the comments are more likely to be a factor in the General Election than in the Primaries. A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%--agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.
[...]
Forty-five percent (45%) say that Obama’s comments reflect an elitist view of small town voters. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree. Republicans overwhelmingly say that the statements are elitist and most Democrats disagree. Among unaffiliated voters, 40% say they represent an elitist view while 34% disagree.
People who have followed the story are much more likely than other voters to disagree with Obama’s statements and to consider them elitist. To date, just 25% have followed the news story Very Closely while another 30% have followed it Somewhat Closely.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Why in the world would you begrudge people their own money, meh? They work hard for it and deserve to keep as much as possible. Would you prefer that the government get it all and eek out a little to everyone? Sounds like you might want to move to Cuba and China it would be right in line with your idea of a "fair" society :-)
"Oh, yeah, conservatives hate their fellow humans just because we don't want The State to take our money at gunpoint and use it to pay for abortions and saving snail darters."
you forgot, there won't be any guns and they'll just rip the fetus from between your legs without even asking! talk about freakishly whacked mindsets, man you need help back into the really real world.
"I paid EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS in taxes this year, and I bet I gave more to charity than all of your people combined."
oooh, i love contests! but, what's your point? are you thinking that your $8K or $19K is more than what i paid in taxes and you're proud that you still managed to squeak out a penny for charity? well, sir, you're still behind.
"They have no accountability and suffer no consequences for being wrong."
it would help if you paid attention to what your elected representatives are doing, write to them, talk to them, be involved instead of just sitting around pissin' and moanin' about them, and vote. of course they suffer consequences, that's how our system of government is supposed to work, except when you get a wannabe dictator like bush with his rubber-stamp congressional republicans.
communism? you people are way off the deep end. nobody here is promoting communism.
"you owe every aspect of your comfortable life to capitalism"
hardly. unlike some, i didn't purchase my spouse and capitalism didn't build this beautiful land that i live upon.
i do have issues with unregulated capitalism, but what you're suggesting is nothing close to what i said. you're an illiterate boob.
michele:
"No, you just would put your trust in politicians to do the right thing with your money. Who has more faith?"
faith in politicians? no, i have faith in the men and women that i vote for. if they let me down, i let them know. if they continue to fail, then i either don't vote for them, or i take it to the next level. the difference is that i remain engaged with these people, which is impossible to do with closed corporations.
"And who hates their fellow man more? Those who lack the compassion to help their neighbor unless the government does it? And when the government screws it up, who hates their fellowman enough not to fix the problem? (Social services, comes to mind -- how many kids have to die in the system before it's fixed -- yeah so much for compassion)."
my neighbor, michele? i donate food, clothing, and time to help my neighbors, literally, when i'm not giving cold cash, and i do so happily without complaint. so apparently you don't know jack about liberals, oh omniscient one.
you've got your conservative blinders on, so let me point out the obvious, that there were rampant problems with domestic abuse, incest, abandonment, etc before there were tax-funded child social services. why didn't you conservatives step up then and eliminate the need? why don't you step up now to save those children before they enter the system, or the 15,000 children who die every year due to abuse before social welfare can even locate them?
and since you brought it up, why must it be up to just liberals to save the lives of the unfortunate kids in a broken system? why don't you step up to the plate, sister, and bring your compassionate conservative minions with you? why not march in the save-the-social-services-kids army and abort your save-the-sperm-and-egg crusade?
is it conservatives who are looking out for the victims of corporations who treat employees as liabilities and not assets? of course not, they have faith that corporations will take care of the little guy. are conservatives more likely to speak out against the torture of prisoners? not. was it conservatives who made the move to raise minimum wages to help the hard working poor? nope. was it conservatives in congress who moved to take care of our war veterans? no, they barely care for them while they're "of use" on the front lines of war.
between you and me, who is more in support of pushing that remote button to indiscriminately butcher iraqis or other people unfortunate enough to live in a country with resources that we need? yeah, you already answered that one. no thanks, we don't need your style of compassion, we'll all live longer without it.
This argument is pointless. You're just toeing the liberal line and expecting everybody to give you a handout.
Why in the world would you begrudge people their own money, meh? They work hard for it and deserve to keep as much as possible. Would you prefer that the government get it all and eek out a little to everyone? Sounds like you might want to move to Cuba and China it would be right in line with your idea of a "fair" society :-)
How "hard" do CEOs work? Do they work 2000 times harder than the guy on the assembly line busting his ass for a pittance? Without that worker, said CEO would have nothing - he sure as hell isn't going to sully his manicure or dirty his Armani suit doing any actual - you know - WORK.
How hard do you "work?" Are you breaking your back? Seems to me you have time enough on your hands to blog about how horrible you have it, so you must have it pretty good.
Of course, in the land of "God's Frozen Chosen," those people who weren't fortunate enough to have the breaks you had deserve their fate. If they were "chosen," they'd be in a much better position in life, right? And as much as you wish you could, you cannot deny your privilege - your skin color is only one of a myriad - like your access to good safe schools, good recent textbooks, good safe neighborhoods in which to raise your good white kids who go to their good safe schools etc. etc. etc. world without end, amen.
Do you like using roads? How about buying food? Do you like water coming from the tap? How about turning on the lights? Do you like living in a land where you, as a woman, get to go to seminary school?
Why would you deny the duty you have to pay for the upkeep of the "Greatest Country on the Planet (tm)?" Pay your taxes.
Or whine more. Your choice.
"This argument is pointless. You're just toeing the liberal line and expecting everybody to give you a handout."
unfortunately for your argument, i earn plenty and don't need a handout from anybody. but if you're offering to send me money, feel free to do so and i'll forward it to obama's campaign along with the url to this blog and some prints of your comments about him.
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.