An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Barack Obama Responds To Hillary Clinton’s “Small-Town” Offensive

India: Children’s Education Challenge & “Pratham” »

Bitter: Perception vs. Reality

Posted by DENNIS SANDERS in At TMV.
Apr 13th, 2008 | Comments

I have always had a scene from the 1992 movie Sneakers in my brain. In the scene, Robert Redford has been captured by his former friend and fellow computer hacker, played by Ben Kingsley. Kingsley has a plan that will wreak havoc on the financial system. At some point Ben Kingsley’s character notes that while the reality might be different, the general public would see the perception of catastrophe as reality and continue the work that he started and end up destroying the financial system.

Perception is reality. That has stuck in my mind.

The comments uttered by Senator Obama is the past few days has me thinking about perception becoming reality. I’m not going to wade into the battle of what he meant, but I am interested in how it will be perceived, and I can tell you that his words will be used by Republicans come November.

The Democrats have had a problem over the last 30-40 years: that problem is that they are perceived as out of touch elitists. Of course, the GOP has milked this for all it’s got, but the Dems have, time and again, put up candidates that appear to not identify with the average Joe. The exception to that rule in the last few decades was Bill Clinton, who was able to turn the tables on the GOP and portray himself as the guy you want to have a beer with, while George H.W. Bush was viewed as an East Coast elitist.

One of the slams against Obama has been that he can only appeal to upscale whites and African Americans, something that Hillary Clinton has said and John McCain will say if Obama is the Democratic nominee. So, that being said, Obama has to appear to understand the working man’s plight and not say anything that seems to be condescending. In my opinion, regardless of what Obama meant, he appeared to do just that in his talk.

And to make matters worse is where he said them: in San Francisco, the place that some might see as the bastion of upscale liberalism. His words and where they were said were a ready-made commercial for some conservative 527 group.

In his recent speech on race, Obama was able to speak to some of the frustration that the white working class felt. He did it with charm and grace and it was probably one of the best speeches ever made. He made that speech in Philadelphia, a city that had a large black and white working class population and also was the birthplace of our nation. It was all smart, from a media perspective, which makes his latest remarks all the more astounding. The words were not chosen with care, and the result is this mess.

Again, I’m not here to determine if what he said was condescending or not. What matters is that it is appearing that way. It’s up to Obama and his media team to come up with a way out of this.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

elrod

You should be careful to delineate between what elite media pundits think small-town voters think and what small-town voters actually think. That McCain and Clinton went after Obama on these remarks doesn't mean small-town voters actually believe Obama is an out of touch elitist. In fact, the way he's turned this around on Clinton and McCain by focusing on how angry people really are has made him look more in touch to small-town voters than out of touch. His original words were confusing but, as usual, his follow-up clarification is strong, smart and effective. Just look at the video below of him hitting back on Hillary Clinton for making herself look like some regular hunter. She's a fraud when playing this "tough girl" card, as shown in the Tuzla incident. He's now had a chance to re-emphasize his own faith, born not out of frustration but his own spiritual path (an obvious rebuke the charge that he was giving a crude Marxist religion-as-opiate reference).

As for the general election, the words would only hurt Obama if he really were John Kerry. But he's not. He's a wily campaigner with a deft touch for the fight. Even when he screws up - which he definitely did - he is remarkable at resetting the narrative and taking charge. He exudes confidence, which many working class voters find inspiring.

Lit3Bolt

There's also a general element of message discipline that the Republicans have mastered while the Democrats still struggle with. For example Reagan or either Bush are perceived as simple "aw-shucks" good ol' boys. Their wealth or blue blood upbringings are rarely mentioned or done so with awe and reverence (he's got an MBA at Harvard!!). However, similar candidates from the Democratic side have been effectively torn down by right wing hyperbole, which shows remarkable consistency and staying "on message." Only liberals are elitists, and elitism itself has turned into a ditry, dogwhistle word, suggesting an effete, cowardly, snobbish liberal who sneers at God and guns and wishes to do nothing but promote "big government" (which itself a dogwhistle for "higher taxes").

So, Obama "appears" condescending and the PC patriotism police jump into action. This media blitz was purely driven by the right wing, with some help from the Clinton camp. The thing is Obama is more skilled at deflecting these attacks than any politician I've seen (well, maybe Bill Clinton). Obama has already dealt with it by simultaneously apologizing/but not backing down, while the people trying to tear him down look guilty of severe overreach. Hillary suddenly looks foolish for handing out "I'm not bitter" buttons.

Has the well of manufactured outrage finally been tapped?

GeorgeSorwell

I personally perceive the economy going badly and the war going on and on endlessly.

Could be just me, though!

So, voting for the guy you'd like to have beer with--how's that been working out for everybody?

Are you happy with the way the country is going?

GeorgeSorwell

And if our media says Obama is being disdainful but I perceive him as being empathetic...well, the media must be right.

Right?

superdestroyer

It is just not that the Democrats are perceived as elite. They consistently pursue elitist policies. It was the Democrats who were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that the public schools should be able to bus students for social engineering purposes while their own children attend elite private schools. It was the Democrats who appeared in front of the Supreme Court arguing that state universities and universities that accept federal dollars should be able to have separate and unequal admission standards while their own children attend elite Ivy league universities. It was the Democrats who argued that public schools students should not be expected and should not be tested while their own children attend private schools with high stakes admission exams and very high performance standards.

It is the Democrats who say that people should not be able to defend themselves but should depend on dialing 911 while they have their own private security. It is the Democrats who want blue collar Americans to ride the bus while the themselves own multiple low mileage vehicles and use car services.

It was the elitist in the Democratic party along with the elitist in the Republican Party who support open borders and unlimited immigration while their children attend schools without a single illegal immigration in attendance or their children pursue careers where the will not have to compete with immigrants.

I guess a fail to see where the Democratic party supports any policies that will support middle class Americans who work in the private sector. But then again, the Republicans have done a lousy job themselves.

mikkel

Maybe the country as a whole is ready to actually pause, think about things on a deeper level and try to figure out what reality really is. Bush's administration is flat out Orwellian and to me Obama's strength isn't that he is a smooth talker, it is that he doesn't fear going back to the same topics and filling them in more.

And I think that it's perfectly alright for people to decide -- after sitting back and trying to understand what he means -- that they don't believe him...as long as they are open to changing their opinion if he proves it.

Marlowecan

It's not Obama's "bitter" comment that is damaging...it's "cling(ing) to guns and religion".

The Obama camp is focusing on "bitter" in its pushback...it is actually refusing to comment on the "clinging to guns and religion" comment even when pressed.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/

It was in the late 1960s that the Democrats lost touch with the working class as a group. It was Mike Deaver who first noticed this, I think, in polling for Reagan in California.

Before that, even the patricians that the Democrats nominated...Roosevelt, Stevenson, Kennedy...all understood the working class. JFK, blueblood that he was, would crawl over engines like an average greasemonkey during the war.

Hard to imagine Carter, or Mondale, or Dukakis, or Gore, or Kerry...or Obama doing the same.

You can sort of see Clinton doing it...but then...he was a winner, wasn't he?

That lesson has been lost on the Democratic party, it seems.

Don Quijote

It is just not that the Democrats are perceived as elite. They consistently pursue elitist policies. It was the Democrats who were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that the public schools should be able to bus students for social engineering purposes while their own children attend elite private schools. It was the Democrats who appeared in front of the Supreme Court arguing that state universities and universities that accept federal dollars should be able to have separate and unequal admission standards while their own children attend elite Ivy league universities. It was the Democrats who argued that public schools students should not be expected and should not be tested while their own children attend private schools with high stakes admission exams and very high performance standards.

If you and your buddies had not been such racist assholes and had not spent an entire century setting up an apartheid system in violation of the constitution no affirmative action programs would have been necessary.

It is the Democrats who say that people should not be able to defend themselves but should depend on dialing 911 while they have their own private security.

Because the 30% of the population that are registered Democrats are all millionaires who all have private security. What rock did you crawl out from under?

It is the Democrats who want blue collar Americans to ride the bus while the themselves own multiple low mileage vehicles and use car services.

What the hell are you talking about?

Don Quijote

It was the elitist in the Democratic party along with the elitist in the Republican Party who support open borders and unlimited immigration while their children attend schools without a single illegal immigration in attendance or their children pursue careers where the will not have to compete with immigrants.

Most of those small & not so small businesses who hire illegals to work at sub-minimum wages are all owned by REPUBLICANS and have the full support of the Chamber of Commerce and the American Enterprise Institute which are hotbeds of Cheap Labor Conservatism.

I guess a fail to see where the Democratic party supports any policies that will support middle class Americans who work in the private sector.

Other than decent infrastructure, decent schools, a functional healthcare system, financial regulations, environmental regulations, decent working conditions.

But then again, the Republicans have done a lousy job themselves.

No they haven't!!! They got exactly what they wanted, more money and wealth for themselves and a big screw you to the rest of America.

Don Quijote

Hard to imagine Carter, or Mondale, or Dukakis, or Gore, or Kerry...or Obama doing the same.

Especially Carter, a man who grew up on a farm and went to join the Navy and be the executive officer on a nuclear submarine. Can't get more elitist than that, I am sure he had no idea what an engine looked like or what an honest days work

superdestroyer

Other than decent infrastructure, decent schools, a functional healthcare system, financial regulations, environmental regulations, decent working conditions.

The Democratic Party does not care about decent infrastructure. Just look at the conditions on any urban public school. What Democrats care about is whether the correction unions get to work on the contracts and whether the proper number of minorities business get a piece of the work. The Democratic Party does about good schools. They care about employing the maximum number of teachers, about not holding anyone accountable, and about giving out the maximum number of contracts to friends. The Democrats do not care about a functional healthcare system. They care about keeping the trial lawyers happy, about giving out free goodies to illegal aliens, and about employing the maximum number of people. The Democrats do not really care about the environment. They care about making it impossble for heavy industry to function in the U.S. (CERLCA, RCRA, Clean Water act provisions). Democrats do not care about decent working conditions. It is more important the store clerks are unarmed, that pizza deliverymen go to the most dangerous neighborhoods, and that an employers have the right mix of a diverse workforce instead of about good working conditions.

The most important thing to remember about the elites in the Democratic party is that they demand of others actions that they would never do themselves such as work in a dangerous neighborhood or bus their kids across town.

runasim

The Republicans have co-opted the English language, and words no longer mean what they actually mean. They are a simplisitic code used to denigrate and attack, not a basis for debating issues.

It's amazing then, that the party refusing to recognize the plight of its non-millionaire citizenry calls the Democrats 'elitist'.

This has nothing to do with elitism, the dictionary version, it has to do with the ability to empathize vs being out-of-touch..

Then, what is it about the 'little people' with which the elites should stay in touch?
Is hunting more important than health care? Is drinking beer more important than the lack of jobs? Is a particular version of personal faith more important than
the lack of resources to feed children?

Leadership has to be elitist to a certain degree, as a certain amount of expertise is required. But, if you're going to be elitist, at least be elitist about the right things!
Obama's crtitixs attack the wrong aspects of elitism, and glaringly so.

GeorgeSorwell

Superdestroyer--

You don't like the Democrats and you have often conceded the more-or-less total failure of the Republicans.

Where, in your opinion, do we go from here?

superdestroyer

GeorgeSorwell,

I suspect that what will happen in the U.S. is that more people will become like the Korean or Vietnamese mercharts in most large cities and just avoid the government at all costs. They will arrangement their lives and jobs to hide as much income as possible and avoid interactions outside of family or other limited groups.

As Robert Putnam as said, people will lose all trust in institutions and spend their time trying the avoid the government.

The other alternative is what I call Big Government libertarism. It is seen in the black community. They want large government programs to transfer wealth and create jobs. However, they want the government to ask little from them and to not interfer in the life choices no matter how stupid.

runasim

SD-
I wouldn't go on so much about what you see in the black community.
It's an embarrassment.

superdestroyer

Runasim,

Have you not noticed that blacks are employed in a higher percentage by the government than any other ethnic group yet hate the police and resent the government. Have you not noticed that black America has a 75% illegitimate rate yet expects the government to fund their children.

How else can you explain the political actions of leaders in black American. Big government and free spending gives the black community a huge economic boost. Yet, they want the government to leave them alone so that they can pursue destructive behaviors.

Don Quijote

SD,

I have to say, you are that rarest of creature in early twenty-first century America, an unapologetic racist.
You are the kind of guy who would rather eat shit and have the rest of us eat shit than give a wooden nickel to an African-American. I hope you are enjoying the shovels full of shit that you have been eating since the 70's.

superdestroyer

Don_Quijote,

Could you please cite a black politicians who has campaigned on smaller government and few government jobs. Could you please cite a black politician who is a fiscal conservative. Could you please cite a black politicians who wants the illegitimacy rate to go down. Could you please cite a black politician who wants black criminals punished instead of entered in social work programs.

If you can point to a black politicians who does not represent big government libertarianism, I would love to be the example. All I have is Kwame Kilpatrick, Marion Barry, the entire Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, etc.

Don Quijote

Could you please cite a black politicians who has campaigned on smaller government and few government jobs. Could you please cite a black politician who is a fiscal conservative. Could you please cite a black politicians who wants the illegitimacy rate to go down. Could you please cite a black politician who wants black criminals punished instead of entered in social work programs.

Cory Booker

Now can you name a republican who hasn't made government bigger? who hasn't made the deficit bigger? hasn't made illegitimacy rates go up?

superdestroyer

If you look at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker, you will see that booker expanded city jobs and raised taxes. He was just a more articulate, Ivy league lawyer who did the same big government, pork barrel, programs that are typical of the CBC. He also started a program to put felons on the government payroll. That is a great example of big government libertarianism.

If Cory Booker is an example of what will happen in the U.S. with Senator Obama as the president, is will be 100% boilerplate Democratic policies.

runasim

SD-

Do you understand, in the least degree, what you're saying? Schools are bad in black communities, because why? Because those nasty kids won't pay to have their schools upgraded? Because government comes in and rips the paint off walls and destroys books and school supplies?
Schools in poor communities are bad because funding practices are bad. Oh, no., I forgot, The poor are poor out of sheer orneriness, right SD?

Speaking of taxes, low wage workers in Alabama pay taxes at about twice the rate
the aflfuent do, and the local Republican official's response was:' "Money doesn't bring happiness."' (True story)
So, dont' be afraid of taxes. Take it from a trusted Republican; the money you don't pay in taxes won't bring you happiness.

I

superdestroyer

Runasim,

Let's look at the data for the Chicago Public Schools. (the schools that are not good enough for Senator Obama's children). They are funded at over $12,000 per child. Yet only 50% of the entering high school freshmen will graduate and less than ten percentage of the entering freshmen will go on to college.

The schools are bad despite a high level of funding as 100% Democratic leadership.

They are bad for a number of reasons. The schools are treated as a jobs program more than institutions of academic learning. The unions and the politicians put learning and performance behind jobs, pork, and set asides.

If you will watch "Hoop Dreams" the parents will spend money on clothes and sports but will just not spend money on books. There is a huge anti-intellectual, anti-learning culture in the black community. Money will not correct it.

blog comments powered by Disqus