Like everybody else for whom attention to political campaigns is either part of their job or part of their life, I often shake my head at the intellectual disingenuousness of what is for candidates standard operating procedure. About which frustrating campaign S.O.P. am I referring? I am talking about the irresistible urge to characterize frank, thoughtful, and intellectually honest comments as anything but.
Because the present Democratic primary fight is realistically over, the Obama campaign has had the luxury of the team up by enough at the end of the game to be gracious. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, is desperate to do what Kansas did to Memphis in the NCAA D1 Basketball championship game- foul at every opportunity and hope Obama falls apart at the free throw line. This means that the Clinton campaign cannot afford to pass up opportunities to distort the very comments of Obama that set his message apart – the honest ones.
The latest example of this involves Obama’s comments about Pennsylvania voters being embittered by the economic dislocations they are facing. Obama indicated that this understandable frustration causes voters to look for explanations, and sometimes to fall for demagogic scapegoating. Desperate for a win in the Keystone State, Clinton took these thoughtful and clearly valid observations about Pennsylvania voters and used them to imply that Obama “looks down on them,” while she would “stand up for them.”
What makes this standard “gotcha” something deserving of special mention? Such tactics contribute to the inability of political actors to give voters what they claim to want – thoughtful debate. They produce a “chilling effect” on thoughtful speech by politicians. What level of understanding would a voter have to possess to believe Clinton’s charge here? Subterranean? In fact, shouldn’t most voters see this line of attack as an insult to their intelligence? Isn’t Senator Clinton showing voters that it is she who is looking down on them and Obama who is treating them like adults? Why are comments like these allowed to stand without serious discussion? Why aren’t candidates punished by voters and the press for such clear disingenuousness?
The only people with a clear incentive to highlight such things are the other candidates and/or their supporters, who have and will return the favor at the first opportunity, making them poor prosecution witnesses here. In fact, the idea to write about this today was no doubt influenced by my strong support of Obama. Would this have occurred to me if the comment were on the other foot (so to speak)? Would I have noticed if Obama had done the same (which he has, though not lately)?
This type of anti-intellectual rhetorical combat is at the heart of what frustrates Americans about democratic (that’s little d) politics. If we could somehow increase the incentives for major media sources to highlight these apparently minor, but subtlety quite significant insults to the intelligence of voters, we may be able to improve our politics. As it stands, the folks who notice these things either don’t point them out because it’s their guy saying it, or can’t credibly point them out because it’s their guy getting it. For the voter without a dog in the fight there is really no one to help them differentiate reasonable from unreasonable. Indeed, even pointing this out is dangerous. Could one not now charge me with looking down on such voters? Aren’t I assuming these uncommitted voters are dumb enough to fall for this crap? No, but will anybody stay tuned long enough for me to explain?
The voters targeted by disingenuous rhetoric are not intellectually different than any other group of voters. They are, however, not politically engaged. They are to the politically engaged what non-sports fans are to sports fans. They have quite a bit more to think about than politics, and given the way politics is depicted in our culture, who could blame them for ignoring it?
Here’s the kicker – nobody with the capacity to do it has a strong enough incentive to seriously attempt to engage these voters substantively and reasonably because beyond their vote on Election Day, these folks are more trouble than they are worth.
I don’ have much problem with his ‘small-town’ remarks on an intellectual basis. I enjoyed ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas’.
<
p>It was indeed a political gaffe, though, and not the last of its type that I would expect from Mr Obama.
<
p>The problem is that the Republicans and MSM will stitch together these gaffes (Rev. Wright, lapel-pin, hand-over-heart, etc.)into a story-line and do to Mr Obama the same as they did to George McGovern (a man who was undeniably an American hero).
<
p>A big problem for people like me who would like the Democratic Party to be the party of working people.
Many of your concerns were thoroughly addressed in this thread, which dropped off the Front Page before you joined. You may be interested in the discussion found there.
… of the Howard Dean “Confederate flags and Pick up trucks” remark. There is a poignant honesty to understanding that bitterness (and the associated fear of change that does not fit into their world)that will drive people to hang onto their Guns and Religion in the face of things they do not understand or know. Weighed against the thoughtful understanding of the bitterness expressed by the Rev Wright I would think it speaks to a greater and more direct understandings of the issue not an ignorance of it but it is an honesty to raw for primetime, to ripe for the plucking of the sound bite American political dialogue.
<
p>Would be nice if we could evolve from ” I Gotcha” to ” I Get it” politics.
<
p>Thanks for a thoughtful post on the subject.
People in rural areas enjoy hunting and fishing. People everywhere enjoy their church, and a relationship with God. These aren’t desperate consolations – they’re affirmative choices.
<
p>And to call them petty and bitter, sad symptoms of those who have been passed by, so inferior to the more elite pleasures of the cognoscenti, doesn’t endear you to someone who has spent a lifetime in a altar guild, or a rod and gun club. BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT.
… you really should find some original material rather than reading tired old GOP talking points, the anything we can regurgitate back as an attack on people who vote our way is fair game to take out of context and turn into a FOX news headline to keep em in line. In case you haven’t been paying attention Bush’s approval rating is down to 28% so I would suggest most people see Rovian philosophical diatribe as coming from the same place organic fertilizer does.
…as mere Bushian Rove talking points, then perhaps you need to get away from the Progressive Daily Line, and interact with actual people.
<
p>And please – exactly WHAT is taken out of context by me?
….attack ads because of some percieved slight. The politics of trash and bash.
Despite my liberal, atheist bent, I can’t figure out how you can characterize your point of view as “understanding” and “honesty” and call Peter’s words “GOP talking points.”
<
p>My midwestern family members who are of the “gun-toting redneck” persuasion or the “bible-thumping” sort would be justly indignant to be told that their ideologies are different from those of their “liberal freak” family member because of economics. They are all doing quite all right financially — incidentally, much better than someone in the Boston area making the same wages.
<
p>I think there are some very good reasons why people in densely-populated areas on average tend to appreciate the importance of government more than the “frontier spirit” people do. But it is patronizing to assume that it is bitterness and disenfranchisement that leads people to have the views they hold dear.
…. your comments have more depth to them. To lump all into one is the Mud puddle Obama stepped into so no surprise he got dirty from it. But as a construction manager of many years I do get to know a broader cross range of people than your average progressive and I do experience bitterness and fear in some blue collar friends trying to understand urban dwellers dislike of hand guns along with support for gay marriage and undocumented workers. And I think it is honest to acknowledge that people hide in religious ideology rather than embrace diversity of religious thought.
<
p>It was a clumsy point Obama made but I do not think it inaccurate for segments of small town or blue collar America and we should be talking about why segments of our society do get alienated from each others views by fear of things not like us rather than parse this gaff to one’s political advantage. That reality avoidance divide and conquer syndrome to affecting real dialogue is the Rovian angle I brought up that the electorate is sick of.
<
p>I think this is presumptious and condescending stereotyping.
<
p>In other words, you’re repeating Obama’s gaffe.
I guess I shouldn’t explain my background so people can comfortably form biased opinions devoid of facts about what drives me to have an opinion. (See above about Rovian Philosophy).
<
p>The whole Elitist argument crap is just that, a way to perpetuate the BS so you don’t have to look close enough to find you might have something in common or that a real issue is in there in spite of all the mud hurled at it.
You are presupposing that you have more variety in contact with people than “the average liberal”. That shows you to be presumptive about others and about your world view being more accurate. This leads right down the elitist path, and you’re making it easy for others to make that point. I’m not of the same ideology as PP or the others, and I’m as progressive as you can get. However, I clearly see that they are making a valid point.
.. and that is the point I am making with no apologies for it, It just doesn’t sit well, so be it. So I guess Obama is being Presumptive (hence elitist) for defining a problem that does exist because he did it in a clumsy manner. To bad cause we end up ignoring the problem to try and win a pissing contest of who is more contextually correct in how it gets defined.
will NEVER really define the problems as they exist because that would not be beneficial to their campaigns. It takes a true leader to go against conventional wisdom and define problems as they really are. We don’t have that in this cycle, no matter who your candidate of choice might be.