Barack Obama's comments about the white working class have thrown the political campaign into a particularly comic spasm of pretense and hypocrisy, but I was planning to let it go, I really was, until George F. Will decided to leap to the defense of the proletariat. Yes, that George F. Will. The fabulously wealthy, bow tie-wearing, pretentious reference-mongering, Anglophilic fop who grew up in a university town as a professor's son, earned two advanced degrees, has a designated table at a French restaurant in Georgetown, and, had he dwelt for any extended time among the working class, would be lucky to escape without his underwear being yanked up over his ears. Will devoted his column to expressing his displeasure at Obama's "condescension" toward the working class.Seems like conservatives have learned quite well from, and have embrace with a certain amount of shameless gusto, the notion of "political correctness" that they pretend to deplore and despise. Read all of Chait's piece. It's wonderful.
...
Blue-collar whites now occupy the same position in American politics that people of color hold in the smaller political subculture of academia: a victim-hero class whose positions (usually as interpreted by outsiders) enjoy the presumption of moral superiority.
...
Since blue-collar whites have been trending Republican, conservatives enjoy a presumptive affinity and have taken it upon themselves to police the political culture for any affronts against their favored class.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Rightwing Political Correctness
I have been watching with growing amusement (and a bit of annoyance, too) as conservatives of privilege have been berating Obama for his politically-incorrect slight against blue-collar white Americans. Well, recently Jonathan Chait of the New Republic wrote a fantastic little piece that exposes the brazenness and contradictions of this trend as only Chait can. Here's a taste of what he wrote:
I don't know if it is political correctness, necessarily. The issue (as I understand it) isn't that Obama made a generalization about blue-collar whites... it is that the generaliztion he made was so far off base that it seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about who those people are, what they value, and why. Rural white people's attachment to God and Guns has absolutely nothing to do with the economy or with the amount of government services they are getting. Obama just looked a bit foolish by implying the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that most politicians at the federal level are fairly "elitist" and out of touch with most Americans, blue collar or not, and singling out Obama for being the same as the rest of them is pretty silly.
That's why I don't really put much credence in anything other than policy issues. I'm still waiting for talk to turn to the issues. In the debate the other night, both Obama and Hillary faltered badly when they tried to answer policy questions. Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone with an income under $250k, and then crawfished on that promise less than 5 minutes later. He and Hillary both acknowledged that in modern history, revenues from capital gains taxes have declined every time tax rates have gone up (and increased every time they've been cut)... then he and Hillary, with completely straight faces, both said they would raise capital gains taxes in an attempt to increase revenues.
Stuff like that is what should be driving people's decisions in this election. Turning the elections into a 2-year episode of "Survivor, D.C." might be more entertaining, but we'll all suffer from it in the end.
Eric - I think Obama clearly bungled the delivery of the point, but I don't think he is off base at all. It is quite common for people, when they feel beseiged or stressed, to do two things: (1) to revert to sources of comfort; and (2) to lash out at the unfamiliar as a way to ascribe blame.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Obama was speaking about. I also think to claim categorically that disaffected and hurting folks in depressed areas of the country never use church ang guns as outlets to seek comfort or to be distracted when times are tough is disingenous, too. Many, many people do go to church more when times are tough than when times are good. And many people do turn to hobbies such as hunting, shooting, fishing, cooking, eating, etc., and turn off politics when politics are seen as corrupt and useless.
The point of Chait's piece, though, is how conservatives lament the dismissive patronization of the "lesser" among us when liberals do it, but then seem to take a self-righteous attitude towards their own preferred subaltern group. Liberals hit conservatives over the head with urban poor black folk, and conservatives retaliate by hitting liberals over the head with rural poor white folk.
As for policy issues, I agree with you on the greater importance of focusing on these issues over others. I think these non-substantive, foolish things like flag pins and bittergate can help candidates prepare for negative campaigns and "gotcha" politics; but they don't forward any kind of substantive debate and actually have the distinct negative of obscuring these more important matters.
"This is what Obama was speaking about. I also think to claim categorically that disaffected and hurting folks in depressed areas of the country never use church ang guns as outlets to seek comfort or to be distracted when times are tough is disingenous, too"
ReplyDeleteTo claim that they never do it would be wrong. However, to claim, as Obama did, that this reactionary behavior is an identifying trait of rural culture is equally wrong, because most of these people engage in these activities regardless of the economy or the amount of govermnent grift they are receiving. Or, as I heard it put the other day, "Maybe where you come from people only pray when it rains, but around here we pray when the sun shines, too." Now, that's probably a mischaracterizaton of what Obama meant to say, but given the words he used, who is more responsible for the misunderstanding?
"Liberals hit conservatives over the head with urban poor black folk, and conservatives retaliate by hitting liberals over the head with rural poor white folk."
I think conservatives and liberals both feel a lot of empathy for the poor and dispossessed, regardless of their color and culture. They just disagree on what can and should be done to help them. Urban black voters tend to get a lot of support from liberals because they often agree on the solution (get the government involved, guarantee more equal outcomes). Likewise, rural white voters are often more inclined to agree with conservative ideals.
I believe this has much more to do with the dynamics of country life vs. city life than it does with racial factors.
"I think these non-substantive, foolish things like flag pins and bittergate can help candidates prepare for negative campaigns and "gotcha" politics; but they don't forward any kind of substantive debate and actually have the distinct negative of obscuring these more important matters."
I couldn't agree more, well put.