The recent so-called controversy over Obama's "bitter comments" has revealed a troubling and ever persistent prejudice in the American society: a knee-jerk despise of anything that resembles critical thinking. What is most disappointing is not that the furor over the remarks was voiced by some supposed common man or woman (whoever they are), but by their self-proclaimed muse Hillary Clinton whose poetic memory trips to her duck-hunting childhood echo the adventures of the all-American Annie Oakley herself. After using the word muse to describe Hillary's proselytizing efforts on behalf of our common man/woman I realized that I had committed an act of verbal violence since one of the definitions of "muse" in the Oxford English dictionary describes it as a "spell of thoughtfulness and reflection" and Hillary's latest spell was the exact opposite: a breathtakingly cynical embrace of limitless stupidity.
During the now infamous San Francisco fund-raiser Obama attempted to explain the seeming lack of his appeal among some rural and small town white voters in Pennsylvania (the lack of his appeal, in my view, has been grossly exaggerated) by arguing that it is the economic hardship that has caused many people to "cling" to guns, their faith, their mistrust of the outsiders, and to everything familiar, in struggling to anchor themselves in the increasingly unfamiliar globalized world. Obama has absolutely no reason to apologize for his thoughtful remarks since they highlighted a historical trend, which Marx insightfully described: material conditions influence the way people think of their place in the world. While it could be objected that Marxist thought overly emphasized material (economic) conditions at the expense of other factors, even a cursory gaze at the situation around the world gives credence to his argument: a precipitous economic depression in the 1980s Yugoslavia led many to embrace jingoistic nationalism as a protective cushion; the millions of Gaza's men, unable to feed their families, turn to Hamas in buttressing their self-worth; and millions of lower class white Americans blame affirmative action (and by extension, African-Americans) for their economic ills. While Obama could have been clearer in arguing that his statement over-generalizes and homogenizes a population, the core of his argument is true. However, the hysterical (and excuse the gender marked tone of this adjective) response to his remarks masks the underlying sociological trend within the American ruling elite: unwillingness for self-criticism. Put more simply, intellectual laziness.
The core of Hillary's attack on Obama has been that he has somehow mocked the very values that make up the American genes. This kind of essentialist thinking prevents any attempt to understand why people behave the way they do. On the contrary, "our values argument" says that "everything that we as Americans do is inherently good simply because we are Americans." With this argument she has found an unlikely ally in George Will. In his Washington Post editorial this morning, Will claims that in his remarks Obama has echoed the very essence of modern liberalism, which "has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them." This statement says more about George Will than it does about liberalism since it reveals that him, and not Obama, is the one who equates anti-immigrant sentiment, love of guns and religion, to American identity. While Obama's argument was anational and regional--in that he was commenting on small towns rather than the abstract notion of America--George Will and Hillary Clinton's attack uses the bully pulpit of uncritical nationalism to mask the underlying unwillingness to bare open and question the supposedly constitutive elements of American nationalism.
It is the American elite--a club where Hillary Clinton along with her $109 million fortune has a prominent place--that uses the charge of "elitism" to excuse their own intellectual laziness and political cowardice. This is the most condescending and shameless tactic of all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I know common sense dictates that we vote for Hilary if it's between her and McCain in November, but I just cannot bring myself morally and ethically to do so. She's so transparent and bitter, that I really don't see any difference between her and republicans anymore. Even if her policies differ from conservatives, there's no way of telling if she will pursue it; She will go as the wind blows every time.
Nader will have my vote if Hilary wins democratic nomination.
Moody - finally a man of reason and principle!
Fuck Hillary. Fuck McCain. I simply won't vote in the prez election. I'll vote in the local, state, and congressional elections, but not in the presidential election.
Hey Pug, that's the bitterness that Obama's talking about! Anyone who thinks small town voters aren't bitter and think that both sides are just offering hollow promises ought to hang out with my extended family at Christmas time. Obama was making a simple point: if Democrats can't be trusted to fight for the economic interests of the working and middle class, voters will gravitate to other issues.
oo, werner herzog has a good point, one which questions my resolve to NOT vote for hillary should she be on the ballot. but. I really think that I won't vote for her- hillary shouldn't represent my democratic interests because she WON'T represent my democratic interests. let me offer this as an alternative to bitterness, though: should she get the nod and I disenfranchise myself, I will not give up all hope of their being a principled, intellectually capable, democratic leader in America, it just might not be the leader in Washington. It could be you or me, Obama in a non-profit, non-government organization, or an organization already at work. If we care so much about change in America we ought to give it to ourselves regardless of political games and their outcome. Voting is not the only power we have.
boycott wal-mart!
ride your bike!
ban CAFO foods! ban GMOs!
quit smoking!
kill your television!
sorry, had a wave of anti-capitalism there. it's a change that we need to enact though, and the way it starts is not by crossing our fingers at the polls or wishing that lobbyists didn't have influence, it's by acting as citizens (which, let's face it, is practically synonymous with consumers) and changing the status quo.
Having grown up in rural America among the very sort of people labeled 'bitter,' the controversy over this subject has made me quite sad. Obama is right that economic hardships drive people to means to fill the ache at not being able to provide for their families and children, whether thats the church, guns, alcohol, sex, what have you. His 'bitter' comments to me point to his own image problem among a core constituency of voters, although it seems that those comments did more to alienate Republican-leaning voters than Democrats.
But I think we need to be careful at labelling these people uniformly as if they are duped. Doing so only reinforces an idea they have of us, that we are elitist and uncaring about them. And while Republifuckers are actually undermining the rural people's very social well-being and are certainly elitist out the wazoo (and patriarchaly condescending bastards), they have managed to control the spin very well--they talk in ways that resonate with people in the country. It's not that the people are stupid, or even so much that they are bitter. They want answers, and at least nationally, only the Republicans are answering them, even if it is only empty discourse. Discourses are powerful when you get people to believe. It's time the Democrats step up and do the same.
Post a Comment