The Heartland Gap

For all the talk of race and gender in this marathon race for the Democratic presidential nomination, the most visible gap on the left is one most often ignored - the yawning chasm between working-class Democrats and the so-called creative class, well-educated liberals who tend to populate the blogging ranks. Barack Obama's ill-considered remarks about the various salves to poverty and job loss that lower middle-class Americans cling to - religion, guns, nativism, protectionism and the like - fairly accurately reflect what many in the creative class kinda, sorta, actually do believe about those in the working class side of the big Democratic equation.

And besides, we're sick of the this media-fueled myth of the heartland that has elected Republican after Republican, and many of us see Senator Obama's candidacy as a way to crush this myth forever, and proclaim the ascendancy of a new American left that recognizes the true leadership of smart, wired progressives. That's why the chorus of "he's right!" echoed through the liberal blogosphere as the extent of Obama's spring-time gift to John McCain became apparent.

You know, I'm tempted to join the chorus.

After all, I'd like to retire the Second Amendment to emeritus status in the Bill of Rights and strengthen our gun laws to roughly parallel Great Britain's. I do think that poor people cling to religion when all hope of economic advance is stilled. I believe that racial hatred and anti-immigrant vitriol is often rooted in class status and economics.

But Senator Obama is running for president in the United States of 2008, not in the country of liberal elitist dreams. The whole point is to win. And while his words may tilt some of the upcoming primaries, its real import is in throwing away his campaign's greatest currency - the love the media insiders showed for his candidacy. In the bowling alleys of Altoona and the diners of rural Indiana, that love took the slightest of hits as Obama's style of retail politicking was derided as less-than-manly. That was small stuff, basically filling the dead air in this six-week slog to Pennsylvania.

Now they've filed for divorce. Despite his apologies, Obama's remarks to big San Francisco donors already have the dons of the Sunday morning roundtables hurling the most vile of Democratic electoral epithets at his candidacy.

Kerry.

Mondale.

And, oh lord, Dukakis.

Words like "Belgian endive" and "windsurfing" are being tossed about. As Lance Mannion pointed out last summer, "In the journalism of the Beltway Insiders, the only real Americans are white, rural, Southern and Midwestern, salt of the earth types." In their heartland myth, created in Georgetown salons over aged port and Cuban cigars, the only kind of president Americans can stand is the regular Joe, the man you'd enjoy a beer with in that bar down on Main Street, in hardscrabble small towns that are hanging on, by God, to the American Dream.

When they listen to their young college-bound and climbing professional kids, these swaggering 60ish blowhards flirt with post-racial creative class hegemony, feeling the occasional thrill up their legs. When the chips are down, they go with their guts - and John McCain is all guts to them.

Hell, even our creative class icons believe in the strength of the manly leader image. Two years ago, Markos Moulitsas, owner of the hysterically anti-Clinton uberblog, DailyKos, nailed the manly stereotype that excites these media types when he - quite without irony - described the he-man Democratic governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, to The New York Times:

“Schweitzer is the antithesis of the Democrat stereotype. Too many Democrats look like targets for the school bully. Schweitzer is a tough guy. And people like guys who will bar-fight their way across a state.”

Barack Obama doesn't look like that kind of Democrat, but his new coalition was in the process of changing the rules and reorganizing the electoral map; perhaps it had a chance to finally banish this stupid bar-fight mentality - to meld the creative class that reads "ideas" into the word "hope" whenever Obama utters it. I think that chance took a severe hit in San Francisco, even as liberals rally to defend his statement. Perhaps they worry that Obama's boneheaded words will hurt him as he tries to close out Hillary Clinton. Class traitor that I may be -  believing Clinton would be the better president - I have to disagree with that take, though it pains me.

Obama's gift wasn't wrapped up for Hillary Clinton. No, the gift card reads "John McCain."

UPDATE: You can tell how potentially damaging this thing is by the vehemence with which the toughest pro-Obama bloggers try to make the story about the always nefarious Hillary - with a little Mark Penn thrown in as a chaser. Also, John Cole enters full-on freak-out mode - hilarity ensues.

UPDATE II: Riverdaughter catches me with my elitism showing - good thing I'm not on the ballot. Seriously though, a post worth reading.

UPDATE III: I had to share this Stewart video on the whole thing - it's damned funny - hat tip to Tracy Russo:

Comments

[tdraicer]

I'm not giving up on Hillary yet. She may take PA by 15% or more, and the Supers have to be getting nervous about that media divorce from Obama's campaign. And if the Obama people were sure they had this locked up, they would just ignore Hillary.

[Will]

Let's put this one in the category of "Worst Articulated Intelligent Thought Since John Kerry Last Opened His Piehole".

Yes, I get it. People vote on these social issues, because neither party is assisting with the economic crises that have afflicted them. Therefore, they end up voting against their economic interests, since the Republicans are at least offering them some red meat on guns, religion, gays, and immigrants. It's the Thomas Frank argument, and it's true.

That said, where to begin with your formulation here, Senator? Did you have to tie "guns" to "religion" to "anti-immigrant sentiment" to "anti-trade sentiment", all in one frigging sentence? Do all gun owners in Pennsylvania hate immigrants? Do all of these small-town folk "cling" to religion merely because of their economic problems? Are the steel workers' problems with trade policy just some emotional diversion?

These aren't the arguments Obama was making. But the extremely poor choice of words, now available in audio, certainly makes it easy for his rivals to hammer home that impression. It will come off to many as the height of condescension.

Here is this young, urbane, highly educated, wealthy black politician from Chicago\Hawaii\Kenya, explaining to even wealthier liberal donors in California the kooky ways of the 12-gauge loving, bible-thumping, 'spic-hating hicks from the sticks of Pennsylvania. Thank God this at least didn't take place in San Francisco. Oh shit, it did.

[Judith]

too bad Obama cant just run for President of the part of the country he actually likes.

[pk]

Hillary may well find after this dust-up that the campaign that's finished is hers--and Obama can compete with McCain, on this ground and any other, better than she could have.

Which is more condescending: Obama's clumsily expressed compassion, or Hillary's cynical and dishonest manipulation? There are gun-loving, immigrant-bashing rubes, and then there are the people who know they aren't, whom Hillary is trying to convince that Obama is calling them that.

He isn't, and I have more confidence in his ability to clarify what he actually meant (see the Charlie Rose clip at TPM) than I do in Hillary's ability to pass as a hymn-singin', varmint-killin' den mother.

OTOH, maybe this will secure her spot on the McCain ticket.

[Judith]

oh dear, if that was supposed to be compassion then Obama aint the articulate guy he has been touted to be, is he?

I just wonder what American people he is trying to unite? The pompous and pretentious? DONE!

[Palomino]

@ pk: I saw that Charlie Rose segment on the night it first aired, in 2004, and Obama's comments then sounded to me just as condescending as they do now. Then Obama and Charlie Rose were discussing a whole group of voters as if they were specimens under a microscope; last weekend Obama and his backers--the Haves and the Have Mores (remember GWB and "I call you my base"?)--had a good chuckle at the same deluded, gun-totin' rubes. And these people wonder WTF is the matter with Kansas! Another portion of the same Charlie Rose segment contains something I've just been waiting to see again. Maybe the Repubs are saving this for the general election (if Obama is the nominee), but in that segment Obama talks blithely about how he "tried" community organizing and he "tried" the Illinois state segislature and now he's going to "try" the U.S. Senate. He sounds like a dilettante. Anybody else remember seeing and hearing that?

[jason chervokas]

The real problem w/ the Obama remarks and their impact on the race isn't so much demographic (after all, it's the white collar suburbs that elect presidents these days) as it is this: The promise of Obama's candidacy, of the "new politics," was a post-culture war dialog--that's what attracted Obamacans, indie voters, etc. W/ the remarks Obama waded neck-deep into the old culture war morass, a quagmire that has sadly dragged down Dem presidential prospects for a generation. Stupid and careless for a guy who is so obviously smart and careful.

It certainly helps HRC on her road to the Dem nomination--potentially scaring off a bunch of super delegates and exposing Obama in regions where he needs to win (the West) and w/ voters he needs to draw (independents)--but does nothing for her in a gen election v McCain in which she's still viewed as an old line, liberal culture war candidate.

She's still not a great candidate. Her negatives are crazy high and she's an inelegant pol--every move she makes the seams show through. But she could back in to the nomination unless Obama has another rabbit to pull from his hat.

[Mutaman]

God, I've spent the last few months listening to a bunch of prissy white liberals telling me about race, and now I'm going to have to listen to them telling me about class.

"The whole point is to win."

Tom, I really have felt for a long time that there are a lot of people on the left who don't agree with you. That's why Bush beat Gore, and that is why we may very well be in for four more years of the same old shit.

[Judith]

"Here’s a guy who says he shouldn’t be stereotyped, but yet he stereotyped us.” Southern Democratic Political Strategist.

[Tom W.]

Hey pk - this ain't about Hillary.

[zeke]

Hey Tom,

You're right. What it's really about whether or not Obama can beat McCain. We already know he can beat Hillary.

pk's point is well taken though - when the dust settles after this latest kerfluffle, it is Hillary who will be diminished, not just in relation to Obama but in comparison with McCain. By allying herself with her Republican foe to score points against Obama, Clinton only accentuates Obama's refreshing candor and her own wearisome cravenness.

[Judith]

Poor you Tom - you go to all that trouble and all you get is this response from the Obama crowd - more Hillary bashing. They aint got nuthin else.

[Kevin K.]

I think the only way Dems can win this thing in November is if we run a Buchanan/Scarborough ticket. Anyone want to help me launch one of those draft/petition we sites?

[chris cameron]

Buchanan/Scarborough ticket, aren't you cute.

Yes,evil Hillary must never take advantage of her opponents blunders or she is a cynical and dishonest and very, very bad. She should politely and daintily disagree with Obama and remember to say "please" and "excuse me" when doing so.

[Judith]

Kevin k, I heard Scarborough say that soemthing might happen after PA - maybe that is what he meant? :-)

[Tom W.]

Sigh....what're you all gonna do when you don't have Hillary to blame everything on? It's almost like a tic....She didn't hold a gun to his head in San Francisco and make him utter those ridiculous remarks.

Listen, Clinton's 5% is Clinton's 5% - she has to fight for it, she owes it to her supporter, and she's just doing what any candidate in her position would do. Indeed, she's held back, in my view.

So that's the 5% equation - the 95% equation is that Obama will have to go up against McCain and the Republicans - in other words, a 95% chance that he'll be my candidate too - and he's just handed them a freaking bazooka! So it pisses me off.

For months last year, we heard about the perfection of the Clinton campaign. Not true. For months this year, the Obama juggernaut has been sold on its perfect pitch and execution. Not true, either.

[Judith]

Tom - when you think about it, the corporate media has executed a wonderful plot. The GOP should have been firehosed out of the WH this year. So what do they do? promote the weakest and most inexperienced Democrat to be the candidate and either ignore or outright attack the ones who could win. Biden disappears because he called someone clean? Edwards gets ignored and Clinton gets treated to an avalanche of filth. And Obama, who sounds an awful lof like his pastor to me, gets a free ride until tney think he is actually gonna win and then WHOOOOOOSH. They actually start quoting him. Not enough to kill him, but just blow off a kneecap so he starts to limp.

I still believe Clinton by 20 in PA. But remember, I dont watch cable tv or network news and a lot of people do nothing other than that so I should never underestimate the power of brainwashing.

[Kevin K.]

Uh, Chris, I didn't even mention Clinton, but thanks for saying I'm cute!

Tom, your "tic" comment can be reversed and used about a majority of pro-Hillary bloggers/commenters out there as well. Both sides are playing the same game. And Obama didn't hold a gun to Hillary's head when she was spinning the Tuzla tales, which in my view (not yours, I know) will be just as damaging in the GE.

And regarding "freaking bazookas," McCain has been handing plenty of them to us lately and I'm sure he'll keep right on doing it. The defeatism expressed by both camps (and, to a certain extent, Edwards' folks as well when he was still in the game) has been less than helpful. McCain was the last Repub I wanted to run against, but he's got plenty of negatives to work with, regardless of who are nominee ends up being.

Group hug!

[Palomino]

@Judith: "Biden disappears because he called someone clean." Yes, Biden was one of the first aboard the Forced-Apology Express.

[Judith]

Palomino - indeed. Biden shopuldnt have said it, but considering the garbage coming out of Obama's mouth and his trusty sidekicks it all looks rather pathetic in retrospect, doesn't it? I actually read an Obama supporter saying Biden talked too much so would get in trouble. HAAAAAA.

Kevin - it is always hysterical to see somebody use a GOP talking point -reality vs defeatism - against Dems. Good stuff. Right up there with "anti-Americanism". Can you spell Wright right?

The media elects the president - where you been? And they looooove McCain. He's a real man.

[Tom K]

It may be, by the time this is over, the consensus will be that the D's were very smart to have this "Superdelegate" procedure in place, to protect them when the voters have narrowly favored a relative unknown who just keeps drip-drip-driping away his chances in the general.

[Slappy]

Judith, I only hope the GOP is a fraction as enthusiastic as you in attacking Obama.

Tom K, so you think Clinton has a better chance against McCain than Obama?

[Tom K]

Slappy:

I wouldn't say I think that, yet, but it's getting there.

At least amongst what I'll call "non-interventionist" conservatives, Obama has made some significant inroads (based on my reading of such websites). I mean not only that he is more popular there than Hillary (hardly worth noting), but that many were considering voting for him over McCain.

That Obama's appeal is broad enough to extend from the far left to (at least potentially) to the far right is not doubt due in part to the vagueness of the policy positions he has vocalized. But I can hardly think of a faster way to lose this particular crowd -- smallish, but potentially significant in a matchup against McCain -- than "misspeaking" this way to a buncha San Fran lefties.

There's been one or more noticable gaffes per month (on average) by the Obama campaign this year -- not counting Rev. Wright (since that was a problem, but not a gaffe). Some, like the bowling thing, are without substance. But the cumulative effect is to undermine the impression of assured competence that is a major part of his appeal.

[justus949]

Tom, lately your site, riverdaughter, taylor marsh, noquarter and bartcop are all I can stand to read. It takes a real man to link to riverdaughter's response to your post. Thanks for being real and love to all of the bullheaded hillary supporters.

[zeke]

I know, I know...this isn't about Clinton. But if any of her supporters really imagine that she hasn't handed McCain not only a bazooka, but a few stinger missiles and artillery pieces to boot, they are quite simply delusional.

During the course of such a ridiculously long nominating process and general election campaign, candidates of both parties will inevitably make some errors.

My own personal preference is for a candidate who errs by telling the truth, however unartfully. I am less favorably disposed to a candidate like Clinton who errs by making up stories out of whole cloth to make herself look stronger and more "presidential." Especially insofar as her lies actually will have the exact opposite effect should she somehow become the Democratic nominee.

Again, all of this is not to say Obama has not made mistakes, nor that Clinton would be a terrible president. But I honestly believe that Obama will be a much stronger candidate than Clinton.

Tom, I accept that you honestly believe that Obama hurt himself severely with his awkward but truthful statements in San Francisco. I also accept that you honestly believe that Hillary's attacks on Obama's so-called elitism are both warranted and necessary. I assume that you honestly believe that her transparent and ridiculous pandering to gun owners is politically savvy.

I honestly believe that you could not be more wrong.