blog.lancehaun.com

My ramblings

Bitter? I think not

Filed under: 2008 election, Politics — Lance at 2:26 pm on Monday, April 14, 2008

If anything has perked up my ears about Obama, it has been this quote that has been widely circulated:

“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,” he said.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, 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,” he also said.

Hillary misses the mark on this issue for focusing on the “bitter” part of the remarks. I think it is hard to argue whether or not midwesterners are bitter overall. Obviously if you live in an area referred to as the “Rust Belt” though, you may be bitter. Especially when people are building businesses and creating new industries. When you consider that Oregon and California both have higher unemployment than all of the rust belt states except Michigan, I don’t know how these people could be MORE bitter than other areas. Still, whether or not people are actually bitter is really moot. I don’t care.

I also enjoyed the derision from the “Bill Clinton ushered in economic paradise” mantra that has infected Democrats for a while. Would Clinton even be mentioned if his wife weren’t running in the primary? Doubtful. But I am off topic…

What I am bothered by is this idea that because of poor economic conditions, they cling to guns, religion, racism, anti-immigrant and anti-trade ideas. That if someone were to give them a helping hand (I am assuming the government), that they would be able to rise up out of this desperate dependence on these (assumingly) bad things. Or, even assuming the best possible implication, that midwesterners would then be able to choose whether or not they actually like these things.

What I feel like he is saying is that a large number of people (at least in the midwest) who want to have guns, who believe in a god, who are racist, who are anti-immigrant/trade haven’t at all thought about their stances. That if their economic conditions improved, that they would simply come out of it.

Now I don’t know about you but I don’t know any middle or upper class people who are racist, religious, own guns or are anti-immigrant. So maybe he has a good point. Haha

Of course, it is smart of Obama supporters to play off the actual words with what he intended: using wedge issues that exploit these beliefs is wrong. And that’s popular with people who feel that Kerry was denied the presidency because of wedge issue gamesmanship. Even if I believe that Obama misspoke and that he doesn’t have a problem with people who have legitimate and differing beliefs on immigration policy, gun rights, believe in a god, or trade issues, I still get hung up on something.

Wedge issue voters, while perhaps more emotionally charged and controversial than others, are still simply single issue voters. And the problem with deriding single issue voters is that they end up being your supporters too so you come off looking like a hypocrite when you pander to issue groups.

And it is only suspicion at this point but I do believe that Obama meant exactly what he said in Frisco. He wants to help them overcome their financial difficulties so that they can see the light and embrace his viewpoints. It may be inspirational to hear for people who think religious belief or gun ownership has more to do with economic hardship than actual beliefs but for everyone else, you’ve got to be curious where that comes from.

If I may end on a cop out note, Obama’s views not withstanding, I still feel like he would be a weaker executive than Clinton would be. And when you are talking about weakness in regards to an opposing viewpoint, you prefer the weaker one because they would be less successful in implementation. So my views on Obama are still nil but I thought the quote was not a pretty thing for him.

1 Comment »

80

Pingback by The International House of Bacon » Blog Archive » Tuesday Links

April 15, 2008 @ 6:12 am

[...] on the matter, now attacking Clinton and McCain rather than admitting he was completely off base. Lance touched on the initial issues with the statement better than I could (short answer: focusing on the “bitter” aspect isn’t the [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>