My pal at Moonraking is embracing the bitterness, so I am joining his movement… Depending on which part of the “bitter” remarks you hear, Obama either sounds like a condescending jerk (“they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”) or, with others (“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not“), like he is just giving a savvy summary and update of one of my favorite recent books on US politics, What’s the Matter with Kansas.
It is interesting, if unsurprising, even in his own terms, to see a version of Thomas Frank’s economic populism–one that has been consistently a part of Obama’s message–reframed as elitist condescension due to the phrasing Obama chose. But it was also heartening to hear the crowd behind Hilary in the audio clip on NPR this morning reacting negatively as she tried to make hay out of this. Maybe it will help Obama in the end by finally getting us past the Rev. Wright BS, and giving him a chance to emphasize the ways he wants to reach out to the justifiably embittered.
Of course, the “worst” part of what he’s saying is actually a central part of his campaign and his appeal, and something that was praised as brave and insightful in his “race” speech: ie, that the divisions that keep the country split apart are a distraction from our real issues, and that we can have hope to get past those divisions if we can instead focus on coming together to address the real problems. (In the race speech, he was praised for bravely acknowledging the that economic and social pressure on the white working class can produce anger at blacks and immigrants.)
Of course, I am clearly both bitter and a member of the liberal elite…
PS: After posting this I followed some links through and found that Talking Point Memo had put up a clip from a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose exploring the same issues… And Charlie even brings up What’s the Matter With Kansas.
Don Quixote Was a Steel Drivin' Man 
Thanks for the pingback, dude! (I guess that’s what a pingback is.) Maybe we should design a t-shirt, Bitter Midwesterners for Obama.
Putting aside Obama and Clinton for a second. “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” which has become Gospel in certain circles of the Democratic Party hierarchy, I am told, is a foolish book and indicative of exactly the kind of mindless elitism that has cost the Dems election after election. There are two problems with it and its ideas from an electoral standpoint, which is really all that matters.
1) The first is philosophical. Why is it that when George Soros supports programs that will cost him money because he thinks they are good for the country he is enlightened, and when a farmer in Kansas supports programs that will harm him financially he is an idiot? Could it be that poor people have ideas? Perhaps they vote for programs that are not in their financial interest because they believe those programs or politicians who support them would be better for the country? A novel thought.
2) The second problem is attitudinal. Clearly every presidential candidate in history, including our beloved current president, has been a member of the elite. Some were elected and some weren’t. There are many reasons for this. One major reason is respect. You must show some level of respect for those you wish to lead. The Dems have fielded candidate after candidate who were clearly unwilling, unable, unprepared to deal with the reality of what average Americans are like. Vide: Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale. The two Dems who have won the presidency in modern times, Carter and Clinton, engaged with regular Americans.
I know it is frustrating and disappointing to the Obamas and Franks of this world, but to be elected president you actually have to develop the knack for understanding and even respecting the views of all those annoying little people in the center of the country. What a bummer.
The beauty part of all this is that Obama’s analysis of the attitudes of small-towners was as boneheaded sociologically as his words were politically. I refer you to an excellent Op-Ed in today’s New York Times, by Larry Bartels, a Princeton historian and socioligst, that just shreds the Obama analysis with detailed, factual, evidence that shows 1) Small town folks are LESS bitter about the U.S. government than Urban Elites. 2) Small towners are LESS likely to cast their ballots on social issues than elites. 3) Small towners are LESS likely than Urban Elites to connect religion and politics.
“Mr. Obama should do as well or better among these voters if he is the Democratic candidate in November,” Bartels writes. “If he doesn’t, it won’t be because he has offended the tender sensitivities of small-town Americans. It will be because he has embraced a misleading stereotype of who they are and what they care about.”