Obama’s Hypocritical “Bitter” Elitism

17 Comments to “Obama’s Hypocritical “Bitter” Elitism”

1. Tad Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

   I suspect that the reason you view his remarks as offensive elitism while I view them as reasonable cultural criticism is that we’re both biased in our view of Sen. Obama. (In opposite directions).

   What if he’d used slightly different words? What I took from his statement is that the poor, rural Pennsylvanians have been more or less ignored by both political parties for the last 20+ years. They cling to religion as a stable force in their lives as everything around them–economy, schools, communities–seem to be on the slip. (Is it the word ‘cling’ that you don’t like?) They cling to anti-immigration policies as a reaction to a perceived threat to their jobs and paycheck. They cling to their guns in a backs-against-the-wall defensive position–since most figures of authority have abandoned them.

   I honestly don’t think Sen. Obama meant to denigrate or ridicule this population, but I know that the readers & writers of this blog may hold a few prejudices that would color the situation in a different light.

2. Brandon Henak Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

   I do believe I may have viewed it differently if I was an Obama believer as you say but, I still would have a problem with the way he stated it. I view “cling”ing to anything as derogatory and weak. Even before the 20+ (?) years of being ignored that you say the rural people of Pennsylvania have experienced (which I would contest is not true), many still had strong faith lives and firearms. Was it “cling”ing then?

   No, and it’s not now either. Barack Obama may have had a point about the people of rural Pennsylvania deserving to be heard politically but, he was derisive and elitist in his delivery.

3. ZC Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

   Here’s why they pissed me off:

   1. diction: “cling” & “bitter” make small-town voters seem desperate/unstable. His word-choice reflects his opinion of them . . . you’ll note how he didn’t say something like “resolute” or “strong” or “salt of the earth” or some other word that conveys the same meaning, but has a positive feel.

   2. He was at some San Francisco fundraiser attempting to explain it to other elitists.

   3. I’m from a small, rural town in the midwest.

   4. I don’t take as much offense to the guns/trade/immigration part of the comment as much as the “antipathy to people not like them” part. It’s one thing to state that some voters differ from you on policy, it’s another thing to suggest that they’re xenophobic.

4. Brandon Henak Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

   ZC-

   We don’t usually agree but I appreciate your readership and we are on the same page with this one. Growing up I spent a lot of time in a town of 500 people in Southeast, MN where my Grandparents are from and I can tell you they feel the same way. No one wants to be painted that way.

   Brandon

5. Tad Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

   In the grand scheme of things, using the word ‘cling’ seems pretty innocuous. If that’s the worst language Sen. Obama uses on the campaign trail, he’s doing pretty well.

   If you want to see an elitist snob, that’s exactly what you’ll see. If you want to see a politician stick his neck out and raise some pointed cultural criticism, you can see that too. (And if you think everyone from San Francisco is elitist, you might want to examine your own personal prejudices.)

   These folks (in PA) have watched their communities steadily decline after manufacturing & mining jobs moved overseas in the 1970s & 80s. Salt of the earth or no, wouldn’t you be looking for something to cling to?

6. ZC Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

   Tad,

   I don’t buy the subjectivist argument. It’s just a really easy way to brush any statement off.

   It’s a fair point about San Francisco. Not everyone (nor even the majority of people) from San Francisco are elitist. People at an expensive Obama fundraiser are a much different sub-set and are likely to be admittedly elite (that kind of access to Obama makes them almost definitionally elite, but concededly, not necessarily elitist.).

   Also, I’d differentiate on another point: He’s running for President of the whole United States of America. Thinking ill of a part of the country is almost an automatic disqualification for the job. If I ever have the privilege of running for a position that is elected by wealthy San Franciscans, I’ll choose my words more carefully.

7. ZC Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

   Here’s my broader point about “clinging” and “bitter”. If I were describing the people in small town Wisconsin, I would not use those words because “clinging” and “bitter” have negative connotations.

   I would use words like “steadfastly hold” or “resolutely hold” or “defiant” or other words with the same meaning that have a positive connotation.

   The words people choose to use to describe something reflect their feelings about that “something”. I wouldn’t use those kinds of words to describe small-town America because I have largely positive feelings about it. The words he chose show me his less than favorable opinion no that part of the country.

   A lot of people admittedly hate small-town America and perhaps appropriately so. Those people just shouldn’t run for elected office in those areas.

8. sheryl Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

   (Hi. Saw a link at InstaPundit and stopped on over. After reading this post and Tad’s further comments, I am compelled to comment. I apologize in advance for a long-winded response.)

   Wow. Unbelievable. Obama’s patronizing comments reek of elitism and fully exposes the “unifier” that he is not. And to think that Tad would find no fault in these comments is amazing. One should never have blind support for a candidate–it’s extremely dangerous.

   The background to my comments come from 10 years of living in a small, rural farming town (pop. 1,000), as well as living in diverse and major urban cities (Honolulu, Long Island, NY, Seattle suburbs, overseas in Sweden and Germany, and currently in Chicago). I also have extensive family living in the small, rural towns of Pennsylvania.

   There are so many issues with Obama’s comments, where do we begin.

   First, to think that people “cling to” religion and guns based on a supposed bitterness stemming from economic woes is simply wrong. Let’s deal with religion. People “cling to” God, Obama and other elitists say “religion,” based on principle, on their belief in the goodness and rightness of their faith, regardless of the woes around them, whatever they may be. To say that religion is a crutch for people because they’re experiencing hard times is just ignorant, misguided, and revealing. Revealing in that these people don’t understand the meaning and value of faith in people’s lives, regardless of their zip code.
   Obama’s comment toward gun-owners attacks their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. If Obama is so concerned with those who “cling” to guns, why doesn’t he go home to Chicago and deal with the gun problems there? Well, there is a major difference between these two groups of people. The gun-owning group in Pennsylvania that Obama slanders has guns primarily for hunting, not for random acts of violence like those in Chicago. (Yes, the Senator from Illinois should keep on top of the problems in his own state–there have been TWENTY-THREE MURDERS in CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS THIS SCHOOL YEAR.)

   Second, to say that rural people have “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” based on economic issues or “fear of losing their jobs” (TAD) is equally misguided. Again, people who hold this view do so out of principle–of protecting our borders, enforcing our laws. Yes, the great unifier and racial reconciler Obama throws in a slightly veiled racist accusation on small town folks. (By the way, people who live in enlightened urban centers have this same view of border enforcement and upholding immigration laws AND also “cling to” religion.)

   Three, why does Obama single out rural areas and small towns in the first place with his disparaging comments? (Or as Tad labels these people, “lower class.”) So, small towns don’t have a Metroplex, the Theatre and Arts, professional sport’s teams, Fortune 500 companies, and public transportation and that makes them “lower class”? Small towns are a staple of this country. We wouldn’t have food on our tables if it weren’t for the farmers in these rural areas and fly-over country. And there are A LOT of rich farmers out there, trust me.
   Regarding Pennsylvania–this is a rich, diverse state. It is no longer the manufacturing, mining state of the ’70s. Might be hard to believe for people like Obama and TAD, but they have expanded and contribute to the economy in many more, diverse ways. Even so, my brother-in-law has worked in a factory all his life and was let go from his job last year. He was only out of work for a couple of months and found an equally good factory job. I don’t remember him being “bitter” and “clinging” to his guns during that time.

   Brandon rightly points out that Obama stereotypes these groups of people in the same way he doesn’t want African-Americans to be stereotyped. He can spin, slice, and dice his comments any which way, but it is clearly a window into his out-of-touch, elitist, snobbery mindset–one that people who fall into Obama’s pejorative categories see through clear as day.

9. sheryl Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

   (Hi. Saw a link at InstaPundit and stopped on over. After reading this post and Tad’s further comments, I am compelled to comment. I apologize in advance for a long-winded response.)

   Wow. Unbelievable. Obama’s patronizing comments reek of elitism and fully exposes the “unifier” that he is not. And to think that Tad would find no fault in these comments is amazing. One should never have blind support for a candidate–it’s extremely dangerous.

   The background to my comments come from 10 years of living in a small, rural farming town (pop. 1,000), as well as living in diverse and major urban cities (Honolulu, Long Island, NY, Seattle suburbs, overseas in Sweden and Germany, and currently in Chicago). I also have extensive family living in the small, rural towns of Pennsylvania.

   There are so many issues with Obama’s comments, where do we begin.

   First, to think that people “cling to” religion and guns based on a supposed bitterness stemming from economic woes is simply wrong. Let’s deal with religion. People “cling to” God (Obama and other elitists say “religion”) based on principle, on their belief in the goodness and rightness of their faith, regardless of the woes around them, whatever they may be. To say that religion is a crutch for people because they’re experiencing hard times is just ignorant, misguided, and revealing. Revealing in that these people don’t understand the meaning and value of faith in people’s lives, regardless of their zip code.
   Obama’s comment toward gun-owners attacks their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. If Obama is so concerned with those who “cling” to guns, why doesn’t he go home to Chicago and deal with the gun problems there? Well, there is a major difference between these two groups of people. The gun-owning group in Pennsylvania that Obama slanders has guns primarily for hunting, not for random acts of violence like those in Chicago. (Yes, the Senator from Illinois should keep on top of the problems in his own state–there have been TWENTY-THREE MURDERS in Chicago PUBLIC SCHOOLS THIS SCHOOL YEAR.)

   Second, to say that rural people have “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” based on economic issues or “fear of losing their jobs” (TAD) is equally misguided. Again, people who hold this view do so out of principle–of protecting our borders, enforcing our laws. Yes, the great unifier and racial reconciler Obama throws in a slightly veiled racist accusation on small town folks. (By the way, people who live in enlightened urban centers have this same view of border enforcement and upholding immigration laws AND also “cling to” religion.)

   Three, why does Obama single out rural areas and small towns in the first place with his disparaging comments? (Or as Tad labels these people, “lower class.”) So, small towns don’t have a Metroplex, the Theatre and Arts, professional sport’s teams, Fortune 500 companies, and public transportation and that makes them “lower class”? Small towns are a staple of this country. We wouldn’t have food on our tables if it weren’t for the farmers in these rural areas and fly-over country. And there are A LOT of rich farmers out there, trust me.
   Regarding Pennsylvania–this is a rich, diverse state. It is no longer the manufacturing, mining state of the ’70s. Might be hard to believe for people like Obama and TAD, but they have expanded and contribute to the economy in many more, diverse ways. Even so, my brother-in-law has worked in a factory all his life and was let go from his job last year. He was only out of work for a couple of months and found an equally good factory job. I don’t remember him being “bitter” and “clinging” to his guns during that time.
   Brandon rightly points out that Obama stereotypes these groups of people in the same way he doesn’t want African-Americans to be stereotyped. He can spin, slice, and dice his comments any which way, but it is clearly a window into his out-of-touch, elitist, snobbery mindset–one that people who fall into Obama’s pejorative categories see through clear as day.

10. dad29 Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 6:15 am

    Citing unemployment and inflation stats as comparos is risky, particularly when you are not looking at the monetary side.

    A good deal of employment was enabled by runaway monetary creation in the USA–the work of Greenspan.

    More to the point, however: de-industrialization is a dangerous path. It’s not just ‘employment;’ it’s prosperity and capital formation which counts.

    Anyone can eat cake all day. The wise man eats a more balanced diet.

    Paul Volcker doesn’t think much of Greenspan’s management of the Fed, either…

11. Alex Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    Brandon, your post is great work from the point of view of a GOP strategist: keep portraying Sen. Obama as an élite professorial-type with allegiance solely to the other élites on the east and west coasts. It’s the textbook response when your opponent makes a slip like this in public. What I find disappointing is that in the firestorm his remarks caused there hasn’t been a noticeable serious engagement of what Obama was trying to communicate — the well-tread contention that Americans, over the past few decades especially, arguably have opted to vote against their own direct economic interest and instead trust candidates who are best aligned with their cultural values (the God, Guns, and Gays voter). It’s an interesting, if controversial, theory, but only unique to Obama in his clumsiness in off-the-cuff remarks. See the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” It’s disappointing that all you hear in the media and from Senators Clinton and McCain is “bitter” and “cling” rather than a serious discussion.

12. Alex Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am

    I just found the sort of commentary I was looking for: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/was_thomas_frank_wrong_is_obama_empirically_wrong.php

    Would that the mainstream media were capable of such a discussion — or that there were an audience hungrier for substance than for caviling and vitriol.

13. Brandon Henak Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Alex-

    First you chastise/paint me as a “GOP Strategist” and then you refer to the lack of “serious engagement of what Obama was trying to communicate”… how about a serious engagement of what I was trying to say?

    I actually had the discussion about “What’s the matter with Kansas?” last night with Daniel. It’s quite interesting, I agree but, I fail to see how the media is to blame for focusing on Barack’s dismissal of rural Americans as “God and Gun” clingers.

    The real story here is not the story told in “What’s the matter with Kansas?”, academics are free to debate that all day, the real story is the way Barack Obama, a Presidential candidate, exposed his negative opinions about a whole subsection of the American people.

14. Luke Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    The whole “real” debate here is silly. Whether it is “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” or the Obama slip, Liberals need to stop whining about people not voting “in their best interest.”

    People all across America don’t vote in their best economic interest at times. Otherwise Michael Moore would be a Republican. This is not a particularly difficult fact of life to observe and yet I am suppose to believe that Obama is somehow again “elevating” debate by belittling these common god fearing gun loving folk who like most Americans are motivated at the polls by something other than dollars and cents.

    Additionally, telling these people they are idiots for not doing what you think is in their best interest is no way to win these people over.

15. Alex Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    That was supposed to be a compliment - Rick Davis sang the exact same tune and turned it into a fundraising gambit (subject line of the email: “A Bitter America?”).

    I think our disagreement comes down to two points:

    1) I trust Obama when he didn’t retract his remarks but instead apologized for having chosen his words poorly. His intention was not to insult people or claim that he’s better than anyone but to allude to Thomas Frank’s idea (which presumably predates TF, but we’ll just assign it to him anyway). You believe that this was Obama revealing his true opinions, that he was at a San Francisco fundraiser and unaware that he was being filmed. There’s no immediate resolution possible here, either you trust him or you don’t.

    2) Unlike Obama I’ll openly admit to what you might call elitism. Given a man who shares a policy position with me who reached his belief in what I believe is the wrong way, I will not embrace him. For example, one can believe in states’ rights for philosophical reasons or because he recognizes it as code for fondness for Jim Crow. Having listened to South Carolinians and others talk about immigration and economics I have no problem accepting that there are xenophobes whose passion is fueled by their economic circumstances. The rest of Obama’s litany? I don’t believe that it’s true of every individual who supports gun rights or is particularly religious, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama’s characterization was true of some people. Because of that, I’m simply not offended by his misspeaking and it’s not a cause of alarm were he to be elected. Are you now going to start referring to me as a liberal east coast elitist?

16. Brandon Henak Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    All I meant was, I made the post not because it was part of a grander GOP strategy but, because I strongly disagree with what Obama said and I wanted to share my beliefs with others.

    1) You’re right, it comes down to trust and I don’t trust Obama. He said he didn’t know about Reverend Wright’s hateful sermons and it turns out he did. He said he didn’t know about his campaign telling Canadian politicians he was playing politics with NAFTA, he did. Give me a reason to trust him on this.

    2) “Having listened to South Carolinians and others talk about immigration and economics I have no problem accepting that there are xenophobes whose passion is fueled by their economic circumstances.” - You are extrapolating the opinions of the relative few you have heard in order to characterize a whole group. You have every right to do this but, I don’t think it’s fair to judge rural people by your experience of South Carolinians.

17. richard martin Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Several things about Obama’s words. Bitter is a perfectly apt discription of excactly how people feel about our country right now. Only 19% of the American public thinks the country is on the right track. Obama was explaining why people in Pennsylvania were not overwhlemingly favoring him. People are skpetical of government and government figures. The last 7 years has shown how little our government cares about our liberties, social, and economic problems. Obama was pointing out that people see him as a man of words that represents nothing but a smooth talking politician. You want the truth? That is how people in small towns feel that have had hard times (I have been around them. Most of them have nasty opinions of all politicians). His comments were not elitist. They reflected reality. The word on the ground in Pennsylvania is that people are not talking about Obama’s bitter comment. They are far more worried about what worse news is waiting around the corner. They are talking about voting for the person they feel will repair the country the best.

    Obama is one of the most unelite candidates politics has ever seen. He actually understands people’s problems. His head isn’t in the clouds. He talks about the issues that need to be discussed. Every time he gives a speech, millions of people see, for the first time, what is really the problem.

    The people that see elitism in Obama’s comment were never going to vote for him. This “controversy”, merely, gives them an excuse to further justify why they think Obama is unelectable. The real surprise will be when McCain has to fight Obama for the Presidency. We will see who is more out of touch.

Leave a Comment