Blowback Ahead
Apr 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am by Susie
Anglachel on the race strategy of the Obama campaign and the Democratic leadership:
So, the party leadership perceives the insecting location of race (white) and class (lunch-bucket) as the point of failure for the political left, believing that all dangerous, divise elements of the party are quarantined there. The party need only worry about keeping the infectious agents within a cordon sanitaire, inside the party to provide votes but not actually allowed to lay claim to any power as they would return the party to the pre-Civil Rights era. The shock of Democratic defections to Reagan served to cement this opinion in the 80s and nothing since then has been able to change it.
The Obama campaign calls upon and reinforces this not terribly hidden opinion of the party elites, though I think he would not have been able to be so blatant in his operations had he not been running against Hillary Clinton. He would have had to be sotto voce in a contest with Edwards, for example, to ensure the MSM did not get their fangs into it. Given that the Clintons have already been declared by the elite of both parties to be reviled members of Bubba Nation, their appeal to that constituency could easily be dismissed as illegitimate and irrelevant, no more than getting in the mud with their own kind. The effect of this campaign is to bring into direct confrontation the two strands of politics in the party, and demand that the party choose between them. The deep irony, or perhaps it is tragedy, is that Obama’s original political appeal was that he could somehow remove the deep division within the party and shift the Truman contingent more firmly to the left.
Why couldn’t he? First off, the Truman contingent is already to the left of the rest of the party when it comes to economic issues, and they are looking for a candidate who will aggressively defend their economic interests. Second, the Truman contingent is actually very loyal to the party. Finally, the Truman contingent’s cultural values are every bit as complex, convoluted and multi-faceted as that of the Stevensonian wing, and they are open to persuasion about adhering more to some parts of their cultural inheritance than to others. They are not open to condescension and shaming. What self-respecting adult would be?
In short, Obama, taken here as an exemplar of the liberal elite, is simple wrong in his estimation of the core Democratic constituency. They did not want what he was offering because they did not see themselves as the ones who needed to be changed, and they have consistently given their votes to the person who has focused on their explicit economic needs and their desire to be safe in an unsettled world while being respectful of them as people.
The political problem, the way in which a fault line is turning into a fissure, is in Obama’s response to not getting these votes. When Hillary did not win their votes, as in Wisconsin, she did not turn around and revile them as “Archie Bunkers” or as “bitter”. I have never heard a word from her or her campaign calling AA voters racists for giving their votes to Obama. She simply does not denigrate the voters. The Obama campaign response to losing New Hampshire was to instantly accuse working class residents of being closet racists and this toxic and grievously insulting charge continues to this day. The more his campaign trumpets this accusation, the greater the resistance to his campaign, which then pumps up its rhetoric, which offends more people, etc.
Where is this going to go? First off, should Obama be the nominee, he can kiss the general election goodbye. I’m sorry, BTD, but you are wrong about Obama’s electability. You simply do not understand the voting habits of the midwest and border states. Next, the Democratic Party leadership itself is going to be paying for its whole-hearted embrace of reductionist class politics. Some voters will defect to the Republicans, though I think that is going to be limited. Those with true sympathies for the Right have already moved over. Instead, I think you see a significant section of the working class simply turn away from participation, depressing turn out and costing the party electoral success. They will stay away until the party offers them candidates who talk to their material interests instead of to the leadership’s fantasy of being modern day Solons.
Discuss.
“they have consistently given their votes to the person who has focused on their explicit economic needs and their desire to be safe in an unsettled world while being respectful of them as people.”
Maslow’s Heirarchy. I don’t understand why I, as a Bunker/ Bubba/ Bitter voter, can have read this and can understand it and can apply it to this campaign and to the world at large, while those “above” me can’t/don’t. To me, this is the heart of the Democratic party. If the leaders don’t want to make this their creed, they don’t get squat from me. It’s the heart and soul of your base, stupid.
And thanks for linking to Anglachel. It’s good to have a clear voice speak for me.
More B.S. about how Obama is “elitist” while Hillary is somehow just a shot ‘n’ a beer kinda gal. Spin.
Barack grew up in a single parent household, not well to do, while Hillary grew up in relative wealth and is now very very wealthy indeed. But the political spin being promulgated is that Obama is elitist. Riiight.
Anglachel (with whom I remain singularly unimpressed) can dress this up in talk about Truman and Stevenson, but spin is spin no matter how fancy the cloth into which it’s woven.
You’re calling it spin. I’m calling it talking to basic needs.
I’m not talking about how the candidates grew up. You are.
I’m talking about what is being promised. You’re talking about talking heads.
Who’s spinning now?
And I’m saying that on the record there’s very, very, very little difference between the candidates, so what’s being played out in the public sphere is empty spin about who’s elitist or not. And that dog won’t hunt.
Oh, stow that “Obama grew up in a single household” crap. Obama’s mom was “single” for only a few years after his dad took off. Her second husband was well off and they lived quite well in Indonesia. His mom was a professional woman as well, not a minimum wage laborer. In Hawaii he lived with a grandfather who was a businessman and a grandmother who was a bank vice president.
I swear I don’t know if Obama’s supporters are liars or just supremely gullible.
Piss off, sister of ye, if you want to get all ad hominem and stuff. Don’t go throwing around accusations about lying or gullibility so cavalierly. The central point I make is that Obama’s no more elitist than Hillary, either in upbringing or in his political life - his voting record is, again, virtually identical to Hillary’s. That point stands, and is not refuted by superfluous personal attacks.
BTW - I grew up in a single parent household with a mom whose job was “professional”. Figure that makes it easy? Think again. We didn’t lack for anything, but we sure as hell weren’t wealthy either, by a long shot. We lived at the edge of town near the black neighborhood (yes there was de facto segregation) and those are the guys I hung out with. Hmm … any surprise I support Obama …?
Would I like to see a black president? Damn straight! I’d like to see a woman president too. Let’s not blow it among ourselves with pointless infighting.
yep, hrc, the DLC candidate, is really the candidate of the working class.
and of course, no white working class people are racist at all and they would NEVER, EVER refuse to vote for someone just cause they are black…
and Reagan, whom the white working class dems voted for in big numbers, got those votes because he made their economic needs so important to his agenda…
and HRC, who responded to concerns re: white working class southerners with a very helpful and empathetic “screw ‘em,” is NOT an elitist that made 109 million dollars since 2001 and she is just a poor oppressed white former first-lady senator.
DEmocrats! You are being handed the 2008 presidency and yet you quibble and whine like spoiled brats. The differences between your candidates and their supporters is a matter of degree. The difference between a democratic administration and a republican administration is the TRUE issue and if you are so obtuse not to see that another republican presidency is not in your economic interest than you will deserve what you will get. We have been ruled by a party whose economic self-interest is to take as much treasure as they can get away with and destroy what that they can’t take. What we would perceive as failure is success to this group. Bottom line over people. This should be obvious to anyone who lived through the last eight years.
That should be your focus.
(a socialist bystander)
ebonkrieg - Yep. True, dat.
“Elite” and “elitist” are two different things, Macjazz. There’s certainly overlap, but one can be a member of the elite without being elitist, and one can be elitist without being a member of the elite.
So please stop using them interchangeably. The English language thanks you for your support.
““Elite” and “elitist” are two different things …”
Which changes the thrust of what I said how? The two candidates are nearly identical in their voting records, which is by far the largest part of what matters about them as politicans. Splitting hairs in an effort to catapult the spin doesn’t give give the “elitist ” argument any more weight. It’s still empty. As ebonkrieg aptly puts it, “The differences between your candidates and their supporters is a matter of degree. The difference between a democratic administration and a republican administration is the TRUE issue.” Whup! There it is!
The elitist debating society thanks you for your support.
Why didn’t you say that in the first place?
Read the thread K, I’ve made this point repeatedly.