Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Meta-bitterness
One thing that confused me about Obama's statement about his potential problems in Pennsylvania are the things he brought up: God and Guns. Maybe I have the context wrong, but my impression was that he was talking about these things that distract voters from the real issues as regards the upcoming primary, and not the general election—where the Gods and Guns issue will be more relevant. There's truth in the underlying sentiment—that politicians use divisive issues that they have little intention of acting on to distract voters from the issues where politicians' actions matter. (No one is saying that God/gods/FSM shouldn't matter to people, just that it shouldn't be a political rallying cry.)
However, has Hillary been using God or Guns this way? I don't think so, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. So, what have been our "God and Guns" in this primary? What have been those issues that have been brought up in an effort to divide us, but that have little impact on how or what our politicians will do once elected? My answer: Tuzla, NAFTA-lite, Wright, 3AM-girl, and, finally, bitterness. Some of these issues might seem tangentially relevant as far as they speak to character, but that's not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is to distract us from what's actually important. For example, when I say NAFTA-lite, I'm not talking about NAFTA. I'm talking about who said what to whom and where and when and under what auspices, as opposed to the very hard discussion of the merits and shortcomings of NAFTA itself.
Verily, we are clinging to bitterness because we are too bitter to talk about what really matters.
Comments (11)
Perceptive. Illuminating. Recommended.
April 14, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The context of Obama's comments have not been widely reported. He made this statement in response to a question from an audience member who wanted to know the kinds of things volunteers should expect when they travel to Pennsylvania to canvass for his campaign. Obama was giving the mindset of many voters who generally align themselves with Democrats but who remain persuaded by wedge issues.
I think his description is right on. I canvassed in a declining suburb of Philadelphia this weekend and found many people who smugly rejected Obama because he "refuses to say the pledge," because his pastor hates white people, because he is a Muslim, etc. Knowing the area, I could anticipate those responses, but volunteers coming from outside the region would surely benefit from developing an understanding of this perspective in advance.
April 14, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but are these people who reject Obama pro-Hillary? Has she been putting out a pro-God and pro-Gun message in Pennsylvania?
The Muslim angle does dovetail into the God part of the God and Guns angle, and many people convolve patriotism with religion as well, so I can see what you're getting at. But, guns? Until Obama made this speech, I didn't think that issue had been brought up. (Of course, we now have Annie Oakley on the trail, but I see this more as opportunistic pandering than a message that was already there.)
April 14, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, Obama wasn't blaming Hillary Clinton for using this tactic; but rather explaining why many of these voters are skeptical of a positive message after having been burned so many times by empty promises.
April 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
These people seemed to identify with Hillary more than they did Obama, yes. It is not that she's thought of as Senator NRA, but that she is more familiar to them -- in an extraordinary number of ways.
I think the important thing to remember is that Obama was describing a mindset; he wasn't positioning himself against Hillary. It was a response to a volunteer, not a speech linking Hillary to a particular issue. These are what the people are like, he was saying. Know this before you start canvassing.
April 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
But wouldn't you agree then that that makes what he said even more alarming? I have a hard time to think the question was worth more than....."They are fine Americans and I love the people of Pennsylvania. They are going through some tough economic times right now and that is the reason that I want to be President".....and then go on from there. If he went onto answer a question in that way I seriously worry about his abilities. If he is the Nominee the questions that he is going to have to answer off-the-cuff are going to be much tougher than those. I realize he's not good without a teleprompter..If your context is correct he sounds like GWB.
April 14, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heartily agree Ben.
April 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like GWB? That makes no sense. He's giving a portrait of the population. There's nothing inarticulate about what he says, and he's actually quite penetrating in his analysis. (One can find very similar statements in Thomas Jefferson.) The only thing I might fault him for is that he didn't flesh out his remarks more fully. You should read the other posts on TPM that show that the Clintons themselves have made such remarks themselves, not to mention Ed Rendell saying that rural Pennsyvlanians would be unlikely to vote for a black man. Bottom line, the Clinton camp is trying desperately to turn one phrase into a window into this man's character. It is petty and ill-advised.
April 14, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like most things political its in the delivery, tone, things that aren't said. His analysis could be good as gold and spot on but still miss the spot with the voters. He did it in a very clumsy way that made him come off as.....Elitist. Saying it in Frisco is like waving a red flag in front of the small town bull. There was a million ways to answer that without causing a storm. Just to me points again that he isn't ready.
April 14, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like how you distinguish policies from distractions.
However, I think there is a big difference between, to be consistent with your terminology, distractions and wedge issues. The difference is motive. Distractions are motivated by a desire to control the 24 hour news-cycle, and to prey upon the ignorance of the public. Wedge-issues are motivated by a desire to corrupt voters, and appeal to what is worst in them-- not their intellect, but their ethics. Distractions are immediate, unpredictable, stupid. Wedge-issues are backed by long-term planning. Distractions are manslaughter; wedge-issues are first degree murder.
April 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a meaningful distinction. Do you see any wedge issues in the Democratic primary?
April 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment