Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[phk]

Makes me think Obama himself is a closet-atheist.

[Michael Z]

Christ almighty, some of you people get your knickers in a twist over pretty much the slightest thing, don't you. Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion - he's tried to come up with an analysis, the way he worded it was admittedly extremely clumsy, but to throw accusations of elitism (or even racism or whatnot) at him is a bit rich and really quite misleading considering that the Republican Party has consistently favoured the interests of the mega-rich, particularly in the Bush II era vis-a-vis supply-side economics, the ownership society, etc (which have lead to the current economic crisis and potential recession).

Equally, it's slightly surreal to see those hard-toiling salt-of-the-earth grafters* in the mass media and the Clinton campaign cry "elitism". It's like Mussolini calling someone a fascist.

*Sarcasm

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion

I can't speak for anyone else (though I'll agree that a lot here is over-the-top in the extreme) but my problems with what he said are that;

the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about

And also;

Maybe it wouldn't look quite so bad if he didn't talk about them as though they are an essentially inferior branch of humanity to be talked about in the way that you might talk about, I don't know, hefted sheep.

You'd think that a Luo would grasp that, but apparently not. Disappointing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In case anyone's interested in the general subject, I've posted an interesting Dissent article from a few years back over here

[Michael Z]

Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion

I can't speak for anyone else (though I'll agree that a lot here is over-the-top in the extreme) but my problems with what he said are that;

the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about

And also;

Maybe it wouldn't look quite so bad if he didn't talk about them as though they are an essentially inferior branch of humanity to be talked about in the way that you might talk about, I don't know, hefted sheep.

You'd think that a Luo would grasp that, but apparently not. Disappointing.

Yes that's a fair point, and as I said, Obama was extremely clumsy in the way he said it. I think any politician who makes this kind of generalisation is skating on very thin ice.

However, on the other hand, it's not as if Obama was simply looking for something that is wrong with the majority, or assumed outright that the majority is wrong, but like many people, is rather puzzled by the fact that people in industrial areas, for the past 20-odd years, have consistently voted for politicians (Republicans and Democrats) who have introduced policies which were detrimental to their economic circumstances- and interests. Why is it that people vote on the three Gs and not on, say, jobs being shipped oversears? Because no mainstream politician has shown any intention of dealing with this. I think this is what Obama was getting at.

But, again, Obama did not say it in the most tactful way and it did make him come across as arrogant and lopsided, and I won't defend him on that. But I can more or less agree with the basic point of what he was saying.

But equally, some of his detractors now crying elitism is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Bono]

Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion

I can't speak for anyone else (though I'll agree that a lot here is over-the-top in the extreme) but my problems with what he said are that;

the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about

And also;

Maybe it wouldn't look quite so bad if he didn't talk about them as though they are an essentially inferior branch of humanity to be talked about in the way that you might talk about, I don't know, hefted sheep.

You'd think that a Luo would grasp that, but apparently not. Disappointing.

Yes that's a fair point, and as I said, Obama was extremely clumsy in the way he said it. I think any politician who makes this kind of generalisation is skating on very thin ice.

However, on the other hand, it's not as if Obama was simply looking for something that is wrong with the majority, or assumed outright that the majority is wrong, but like many people, is rather puzzled by the fact that people in industrial areas, for the past 20-odd years, have consistently voted for politicians (Republicans and Democrats) who have introduced policies which were detrimental to their economic circumstances- and interests. Why is it that people vote on the three Gs and not on, say, jobs being shipped oversears? Because no mainstream politician has shown any intention of dealing with this. I think this is what Obama was getting at.

But, again, Obama did not say it in the most tactful way and it did make him come across as arrogant and lopsided, and I won't defend him on that. But I can more or less agree with the basic point of what he was saying.

But equally, some of his detractors now crying elitism is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The whole notion that it is in their interest to vote for anti-trade, dinosaur leftist politicians is itself extremely arrogant and callous, as if free traders and economic conservatives are out to get industrial workers and benefit everyone else. People support those policies because they think they lead to the greatest prosperity, not as part of some class warfare conspiracy. You are imputing your own worldview to your opponents, most if not all of whom don't think in those term.

[Michael Z]

Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion

I can't speak for anyone else (though I'll agree that a lot here is over-the-top in the extreme) but my problems with what he said are that;

the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about

And also;

Maybe it wouldn't look quite so bad if he didn't talk about them as though they are an essentially inferior branch of humanity to be talked about in the way that you might talk about, I don't know, hefted sheep.

You'd think that a Luo would grasp that, but apparently not. Disappointing.

Yes that's a fair point, and as I said, Obama was extremely clumsy in the way he said it. I think any politician who makes this kind of generalisation is skating on very thin ice.

However, on the other hand, it's not as if Obama was simply looking for something that is wrong with the majority, or assumed outright that the majority is wrong, but like many people, is rather puzzled by the fact that people in industrial areas, for the past 20-odd years, have consistently voted for politicians (Republicans and Democrats) who have introduced policies which were detrimental to their economic circumstances- and interests. Why is it that people vote on the three Gs and not on, say, jobs being shipped oversears? Because no mainstream politician has shown any intention of dealing with this. I think this is what Obama was getting at.

But, again, Obama did not say it in the most tactful way and it did make him come across as arrogant and lopsided, and I won't defend him on that. But I can more or less agree with the basic point of what he was saying.

But equally, some of his detractors now crying elitism is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The whole notion that it is in their interest to vote for anti-trade, dinosaur leftist politicians is itself extremely arrogant and callous, as if free traders and economic conservatives are out to get industrial workers and benefit everyone else. People support those policies because they think they lead to the greatest prosperity, not as part of some class warfare conspiracy. You are imputing your own worldview to your opponents, most if not all of whom don't think in those term.

Job losses, factories closing, jobs going overseas, an ever-increasing wage gap that does not reflect the growth of the economy, a decline in pension funds, ever-increasing personal- and national debt, spiralling mortgage costs... yes, supply-side economics and "free" trade are working swimmingly well, aren't they. If anyone is imposing a worldview, it is the neoliberal economists who think solely in ideological terms and do not apply any sense of pragmatism to their ideas.

[Bono]

Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion

I can't speak for anyone else (though I'll agree that a lot here is over-the-top in the extreme) but my problems with what he said are that;

the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about

And also;

Maybe it wouldn't look quite so bad if he didn't talk about them as though they are an essentially inferior branch of humanity to be talked about in the way that you might talk about, I don't know, hefted sheep.

You'd think that a Luo would grasp that, but apparently not. Disappointing.

Yes that's a fair point, and as I said, Obama was extremely clumsy in the way he said it. I think any politician who makes this kind of generalisation is skating on very thin ice.

However, on the other hand, it's not as if Obama was simply looking for something that is wrong with the majority, or assumed outright that the majority is wrong, but like many people, is rather puzzled by the fact that people in industrial areas, for the past 20-odd years, have consistently voted for politicians (Republicans and Democrats) who have introduced policies which were detrimental to their economic circumstances- and interests. Why is it that people vote on the three Gs and not on, say, jobs being shipped oversears? Because no mainstream politician has shown any intention of dealing with this. I think this is what Obama was getting at.

But, again, Obama did not say it in the most tactful way and it did make him come across as arrogant and lopsided, and I won't defend him on that. But I can more or less agree with the basic point of what he was saying.

But equally, some of his detractors now crying elitism is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The whole notion that it is in their interest to vote for anti-trade, dinosaur leftist politicians is itself extremely arrogant and callous, as if free traders and economic conservatives are out to get industrial workers and benefit everyone else. People support those policies because they think they lead to the greatest prosperity, not as part of some class warfare conspiracy. You are imputing your own worldview to your opponents, most if not all of whom don't think in those term.

Job losses, factories closing, jobs going overseas, an ever-increasing wage gap that does not reflect the growth of the economy, a decline in pension funds, ever-increasing personal- and national debt, spiralling mortgage costs... yes, supply-side economics and "free" trade are working swimmingly well, aren't they. If anyone is imposing a worldview, it is the neoliberal economists who think solely in ideological terms and do not apply any sense of pragmatism to their ideas.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who self identified as a 'neo-liberal'. Neo-liberalism is a pseudo-ideology invented by the left for them to have a convenient slur to throw at people who bested them in the marketplace of ideas, especially in economics. We are liberals in Europe, and libertarians in the US. Neo-liberalism is just the left's new bogeyman, because they overused fascist so much no one cared when you called your opponents that.

As for the rest, a growing economy who wants development cannot expect all jobs to remain the same. Turnover is healthy; when the same companies and sectors dominate an economy without change, you know the economy has stagnated. Of course, this just shows how the left is really much more conservative and reactionary than the opponents they deride as such. They are too conservative to tolerate any change in the social order, even when such a change clearly lifts everyone. Your complaints of wage gap are irrelevant, only people with a class warfare mentality care that others are gaining faster than them--to institute government policies against that is nothing but the institutionalization of envy. So you can keep insisting on your divine right to stagnation--see where that lands anyone that tried it. 

[Michael Z]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who self identified as a 'neo-liberal'. Neo-liberalism is a pseudo-ideology invented by the left for them to have a convenient slur to throw at people who bested them in the marketplace of ideas, especially in economics. We are liberals in Europe, and libertarians in the US. Neo-liberalism is just the left's new bogeyman, because they overused fascist so much no one cared when you called your opponents that.

Whatever. I tend to call them (people who espouse supply side economics and the ilk) anarcho-capitalists, because that is more or less what they are, vis-a-vis the definition of the term.

Btw, I hope you realise that you've just used a strawman argument whereby you accuse others of applying strawman arguments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, this is exactly what is wrong with supply-side AKA trickle-down economics - the idea and the theory, that if you lift the living standards of the very richest in society, then the rest will go up with them.

Except it doesn't. The average national salary has remained stagnant in the past 5-10 years while CEO pay has skyrocketed. Worse, basis costs have increased, as have mortgage costs, council tax (in the UK) - 50% in some regions, and now food costs as well. The economy has only remained viable in the past decade or so due to a credit- and housing bubble, but that is bursting as I'm writing this, and I'm not exactly pleased to say it either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look at the credit crunch - if people are spending more than they earn while basic costs and mortgages are increasing, partly a deriviative of said wage gap, then that clearly is a problem for the economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the New Deal was an utter failure, as were the Scandinavian reforms of the early 90s.

On a final note, you should try refraining from excessive ad hominen- and strawman arguments. The fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't automatically insinuate that they're less intelligent than you or that their opinion is automatically worthless/irrelevant. You'll never influence people by being disrespectful to them, it simply reflects badly on you.

[minionofmidas]

I like the line about the "market place of ideas" because, while looking like completely meaningless fluff at first glance, it actually shows exactly what's wrong with Bono's argument. Because where is it written that it's the best product that can find a market?

[minionofmidas]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who self identified as a 'neo-liberal'. Neo-liberalism is a pseudo-ideology invented by the left for them to have a convenient slur to throw at people who bested them in the marketplace of ideas, especially in economics. We are liberals in Europe, and libertarians in the US. Neo-liberalism is just the left's new bogeyman, because they overused fascist so much no one cared when you called your opponents that.

Whatever. I tend to call them (people who espouse supply side economics and the ilk) anarcho-capitalists, because that is more or less what they are, vis-a-vis the definition of the term.

That's like calling The Ramones and Avril Lavigne's first album "punk". Or like angering BRTD by using the term "emo" for pop bands. Putting the excuses-for-thought currently dominant in university economics into one category with genuine ancap concepts.

[Sam Spade]

LOL@this thread being almost twice as long as Erc's delegate counting thread.

Seriously guys:

Good to see you're about as clueless as usual.  And I bet you wish one of your millions of threads could spark nearly 400 replies that weren't mostly about how stupid the author of the post is.

[Torie]

Regarding those nice little charts, the CPI overstates inflation (particularly the old index before it was reconstituted about a decade ago which overstated inflation by about 1%, maybe a bit more).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@this thread being almost twice as long as Erc's delegate counting thread.

Seriously guys:

Good to see you're about as clueless as usual.  And I bet you wish one of your millions of threads could spark nearly 400 replies that weren't mostly about how stupid the author of the post is.

Oh no! Obama made a comment that was poorly worded and might sound insensitive about parts of Pennsylvania that weren't going to vote for him anyway! Clearly his campaign is over!

[J. J.]

Christ almighty, some of you people get your knickers in a twist over pretty much the slightest thing, don't you. Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion - he's tried to come up with an analysis, the way he worded it was admittedly extremely clumsy, but to throw accusations of elitism (or even racism or whatnot) at him is a bit rich and really quite misleading considering that the Republican Party has consistently favoured the interests of the mega-rich, particularly in the Bush II era vis-a-vis supply-side economics, the ownership society, etc (which have lead to the current economic crisis and potential recession).

Equally, it's slightly surreal to see those hard-toiling salt-of-the-earth grafters* in the mass media and the Clinton campaign cry "elitism". It's like Mussolini calling someone a fascist.

*Sarcasm

When you call these things "fringe issues" you make the same mistake Obama does.  That is why I've Obama is out of touch.

Tell me, the people in my neighborhood care about civil rights, probably more than "economic issues."  They probably care more about crime.  Are these "fringe issues?"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If we needed any proof all of the Republicans here are now Hillary hacks...

[Torie]

If we needed any proof all of the Republicans here are now Hillary hacks...

[angus]

Watch all 3 CNN commentators cut right through the McCain/Clinton crap on Obama's comments:

We might have watched the same analysis.  I'm too lazy to click on your link, but I caught Ed Rendell last night on CNN talking about this.  At first, I was a bit put off, because I found nothing offensive about the comment, and thought about the abject sensationalism of taking a quote out of context and having fun with it in order to assure viewership, and therefore job security, for talking heads and journalists.  But after watching Rendell's comments, I guess I have a better understanding of the reason some might want to talk about the comment so much.

First, he pointed out that Obama misspoke about the plight of pennsylvanians.   He quoted some statistics and compared places like York and Wilkes-Barre to the way they were ten years ago and convinced me that Pennsylvania isn't reeling in an economic crisis.  Obama might have studied a little harder.  That's oversimplifying but it cut to the heart of the matter, and it was kind of important because you want your president to be somewhat knowledgeable.  After 8 years of Bush you can no longer claim that lack of general knowledge isn't potentially harmful. 

He went on to point out that folks liked guns way back when Pennsylvania was the epicenter of the Industrial Revolution in the US and everyone who likes to hunt generally likes to hunt whether their stocks are up or down.  I thought that a good point as well, but it does sort of take Obama out of context.  And he said some things about observant monotheists who practice religion out of a genuine spirituality which hasn't much to do with economics either.  I also thought that took Obama out of context as well.  But at least it helped the ignorant among us understand why the statement might be offensive.  But the first point that he made, the one about Obama's general ignorance of Pennsylvania's current state of economics, was the most prescient I think.

That said, we always are reading in TIME magazine and the Wall Street Journal and the talking heads are always saying that it's easy to recruit terrorists in places like Sudan because of their poverty.  They're always going on some touch-feely argument about how we ought to try to alleviate poverty in Africa and Asia as a means to ensuring good will toward the US and as a means to defeat the cause of such resentment that folks turn to guns and allah.  Now, how can we claim that every one else is like that but not us?  Either we buy into the argument that economics is a tremendous motivator, and makes folks get a little preachy and a little violent when they're poor, or we don't buy into it.  And if we do buy into that, then it's reasonable to, perhaps, talk about sinking money into the plight of impoverished, starving Africans and south Asians.  But, to be fair, then we shouldn't think ourselves in our own rich nation above such human frailties.  If we don't buy into the argument, then that's fine too.  But then we'll have to stop claiming that poverty is a major reason that it's easy for terrorist organizations to recruit suicide bombers.

That is, we can't have it both ways.  And that's exactly what some of these talking heads are doing.  The claim is valid enough when they're talking about brown people half a world away.  But when they talk about the poor white hillfolk in the Keystone State, it's suddenly too offensive a thing to say.  Then again, let's be honest:  Hillary's down just now, at least in terms of delegates, so it makes sense if you're a journalist to put Obama down.  If Obama's down, then you want to put Hillary down.  This will ensure viewership.  Why does this thread go on for 26 pages?  Because it's good for business.  Play something over and over on CNN and folks will begin to think it's important.  And therefore you'll be important for breaking the story.  Once again, economics provides the answer.   Insensitive though he may be, and perhaps he missed a few key details, but Obama is definitely on to something.

[Michael Z]

Christ almighty, some of you people get your knickers in a twist over pretty much the slightest thing, don't you. Obama has basically expressed a view often reiterated in works like What's The Matter With Kansas, ie. why do working class people or people in post-industrial areas vote against their economic interests and instead tend to vote on fringe issues like gun control or abortion - he's tried to come up with an analysis, the way he worded it was admittedly extremely clumsy, but to throw accusations of elitism (or even racism or whatnot) at him is a bit rich and really quite misleading considering that the Republican Party has consistently favoured the interests of the mega-rich, particularly in the Bush II era vis-a-vis supply-side economics, the ownership society, etc (which have lead to the current economic crisis and potential recession).

Equally, it's slightly surreal to see those hard-toiling salt-of-the-earth grafters* in the mass media and the Clinton campaign cry "elitism". It's like Mussolini calling someone a fascist.

*Sarcasm

When you call these things "fringe issues" you make the same mistake Obama does.  That is why I've Obama is out of touch.

Tell me, the people in my neighborhood care about civil rights, probably more than "economic issues."  They probably care more about crime.  Are these "fringe issues?"

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

[Brittain33]

Oh no! Obama made a comment that was poorly worded and might sound insensitive about parts of Pennsylvania that weren't going to vote for him anyway! Clearly his campaign is over!

It's funny, while clearly this quote has been widely reported and is offensive to some people, there should be a lifetime ban on claims this irrevocably damages Obama from anyone who declared him "toast" when the Rev. Wright tapes went public.

[Bacon King]

As he often does, Angus just completely hit the nail on the head.

[J. J.]

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

I really don't know.  You think religion and guns are "fringe issues."  Fringe issues are in the eyes of the beholder.  Obama's view is much different than the average persons view.

[Flying Dog]

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

I really don't know.  You think religion and guns are "fringe issues."  Fringe issues are in the eyes of the beholder.  Obama's view is much different than the average persons view.

Who is this average person you speak of?

[J. J.]

Oh no! Obama made a comment that was poorly worded and might sound insensitive about parts of Pennsylvania that weren't going to vote for him anyway! Clearly his campaign is over!

It's funny, while clearly this quote has been widely reported and is offensive to some people, there should be a lifetime ban on claims this irrevocably damages Obama from anyone who declared him "toast" when the Rev. Wright tapes went public.

You know, on a scale of 1 to 10, with Spizer being a 10, I called the Wright Affair a 2-3.

[J. J.]

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

I really don't know.  You think religion and guns are "fringe issues."  Fringe issues are in the eyes of the beholder.  Obama's view is much different than the average persons view.

Who is this average person you speak of?

The ones that gave Bush a majority in the last election.