(This is my first diary here. I love it here so far. Cross posted at dailykos.)
We all love someone who can stand up in front of a potentially hostile audience and speak their mind candidly, despite fear of retribution. Some would argue that's exactly what Barack Obama did at his now notorious fundraiser in Pacific Heights, California. But I'm hearing arguments being used to defend his speech that are, in my opinion (call it the "truth" if you're willing to afford me the same generosity afforded to Obama's opinion), completely missing the mark. So I have a few points to raise.
Here's why people are offended.
1. It's not the usage of "bitter."
If Obama had stated that voters were bitter about the state of the economy, no one would have blinked an eye. It's not the most flattering way to say that someone's angry, but it would have been an innocuous poor turning of phrase.
The controversial and insulting part of his speech is the part where he says that bitterness is the reason small town voters in Pennsylvania "cling" to their religion, guns, and anti-immigrant/anti-trade sentiments. That trivializes some of the most deeply held convictions of these people as mere inevitable peripherals of poverty, a condition itself which isn't exactly a flattering attribution to a large diverse voting block (non-urban Pennsylvania/Ohio/America).
Former Iowa governor Vilsack said it most succinctly:
"I think the most glaring misreading and misunderstanding of people in small towns were Senator Obama's comments about God and guns. He suggests that in some way the faith of those who live in small towns is superficial. It's used as a crutch in a time of need. That's not what I know. What I know is that our faith is real and it is rooted. It is the foundation of our values system. It is what defines how we live our lives, and most importantly of all, how we raise our families. It is true. It is genuine." (Forgive me for not having luck getting the block quote function to work yet.)
The context of Obama's quote is actually just as deleterious as the most publicized snippets. It shows him not only blaming his poor performance in Pennsylvania in part on his race ("when it's delivered by a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama [Audience Laughter]") but belitting small town Pennsylvanians as "working-class lunch-pail folks." I have read this quote to people and seen their eyes bulge and jaws drop. I can't imagine anyone responding well to a Harvard-educated political celebrity highlighting the fact that they use a modest lunch-pail, using it to typify them, and doing it in front of a believed-to-be-private fundraiser to the merriment of upscale Californians. These are the problems with Obama's speech, not the mere usage of the word "bitter."
2. It doesn't matter if what he said was arguably "true."
It is inappropriate to say something disparaging and then blithely defend it solely on the basis of its truth.
Example 1:
"You're really fat because you eat so many carbs."
"Say what!?"
"But it's true. I mean it can be scientifically and medically proven. You're over 650 pounds and if you ate less pasta, you would store less energy."
Example 2:
"Black people are impoverished so they cling to crime."
"WHAT!?" [outrage, and rightfully so]
"But it's true. It's in all the sociology texts, justice system statistics, etc. It's not their fault though; it's just the poor socioeconomic conditions to which America and its government has abandoned them." (See a parallel? a la "I didn't insult you, I just stated [what I consider] to be a socioeconomic fact.")
Example 3:
"Big city voters vote for trendy fad du jour candidates because it gives them a sense of self-identity otherwise lacking in the overwhelm and anonymity of congested urban life."
"Huh?" [offense, naturally]
"But it's true. There's this book called 'What's the Matter with Kansas City' and it explains everything..."
Example 4:
"Small town voters are so poor that they have nothing and they end up clinging to religion, guns, and xenophobia."
[jaws drop]
... except on DailyKos where what Obama says is fine because,
"it's true. It's a sociological 'fact' that when people are disenfranchised economically, they crutch on faith, and vent their frustration through private gun use and hate towards outsiders."
I think the parallels are clear. In each case, the initial comment should have not even been thought, let alone outwardly spoken.
3. Hillary Clinton never denied that small-town Americans were angry.
A human being can have bitterness towards the government without having that be their defining trait. Hillary positively characterized Pennsylvanians as "optimistic" and "resilient." She said nothing to suggest they weren't dissatisfied with their government nor did she suggest that Pennsylvanians are oblivious joy-beamers living in a utopia bubble. One can be "bitter" towards government while at the same time be a strong forward-looking person. This is the essence of Hillary's comment. When a politician describes a population as "optimistic," "resilient," and "hardworking," you really have to join a circus of logical gymnastics to misconstrue her language as "pandering," "condescending," or "ignorant" of the population's dissatisfaction with government.
I like seeing the continued discussion here with nuance. I only hope that there is a better way to defend Obama's comment than with "all he did was call them bitter, and rightfully so!" or "but it's true!" or "Hillary just pandered, what does she think everyone is--oblivious!?"
Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 208 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
