There’s an interesting post up at Obsidian Wings about the backlash to Obama’s recent remarks about working-class Pennsylvanians. The theory, essentially, is: "pin it on liberal self-loathing."
[F]ar too many liberals — particularly circa 2002-03 — had internalized the view that they were snobby, that they were elitist, that they were too anti-religion, or that they were insufficiently patriotic in the eyes of the American public. It’s not so much that they actually were any of these things (at least in any great number). It’s that they feared (deeply feared) being perceived in this way by the American public. To borrow from Dylan, a lot of issues came and went, but the Great Dirty Hippie never escaped their mind.
This curious self-loathing — the shame and guilt associated with perfectly valid and moral views — explains the rush to “condemn the marginal” in the lead up to war. It’s quite telling that, as the country marched off to a horribly misguided war, many liberal skeptics were more concerned with clarifying that they were not mindlessly liberal hippie pacifists. In doing so, they gave considerable political cover to the war advocates. . . .
The 2005 Social Security debate provides another great example of this dynamic. . . . I got the sense that individual journalists and pundits — particularly Tim Russert — cared more about proving their non-hippie bona fides than about the substance of an extremely reckless proposed change to the most successful, efficient government program in American history. Rather than looking closely how many people depend upon the Social Security system, they chose to draw a line in the sand and say “here is where I’ll prove I’m not a wild liberal.” In doing so, and similarly to Iraq, people like Russert put the burden of proof on Democrats to explain what (unnecessary) changes they would propose.
Turning back to Obama, this same dynamic explains the intense reaction to his words. Among liberals, there’s this ever-present fear that Obama — record-setting, charismatic Obama — is always teetering on the edge of collapse. To you, I say “chill out.” He’s a tough, resilient candidate as he’s shown again and again. But among always-nervous guilty liberals, Obama’s inartful wording portends not merely a bad press cycle or two, but electoral collapse because it fulfills the elitist stereotypes they live in mortal terror of.
There’s a lot of interesting and important stuff in there about "liberals" (or is it "progressives" these days?) being terrified of being identified as liberals, and consequently rejecting the "fringe left" in voices more than a touch too loud.
That said, I don’t think this explanation is complete. If it had been John Kerry, then maybe; but it wasn’t, it was Barack Obama. And when a biracial senator gunning to be the real "first black President" (sorry, Bill) is involved, you have to at least tip your cap to the racial dynamic. In the United States at the start of the twenty-first century, it’s always about race.
Accidental Blogger 
5 responses to “Obama, the Liberal (Joe)”
“In the United States at the start of the twenty-first century, it’s always about race.” Right on, Joe. You called it.
LikeLike
“In the United States at the start of the twenty-first century, it’s always about race.” Right on, Joe. You called it.
Dean and Joe, please explain. Because for all the “liberals” I know who are voting for Obama, except for African Americans, it is not AT ALL about race. On the other hand, among my Democrat friends who are not supporting Obama, for many it IS about race. (for some it is even a persistent suspicion about his religion – crypto Muslim?) So which side in this 21st Century debate are you pointing to?
As for liberal self loathing, the Obsidian Wings view is right on the money. But please note that this cautious walking-on- egg-shells mentality is prevalent among liberals of a certain age – slightly older than I am. The Vietnam era crowd who were of college age in the 60s. The younger liberals are relatively free of that fear. Which is why I trust Obama’s “progressive” instincts better than the New Democrat mindset of the Clintons. Remember Clinton couldn’t even stand up to the “gays in the military” issue in 1993 because it would evoke his own scruffy “Make Love, Not War” past.
I am really sorry to see that Obama had to apologize for his perfectly legitimate statement about the frustrations of the working class whose manufacturing jobs have lost their muscular appeal. I wasn’t surprised that McCain played the “elitist” card. But Hillary (Wellesley College, Yale Law, state and national First Lady, senator from the east coast, $109 million net worth) sidling up as a gun-toting, church going, whiskey swilling (it was Canadian, not Jack Daniels by the way) blue collar girl is a bit rich. But then again, a Clinton hewing to flag, guns, church and now booze, for the sake of political expediency is not a surprise at all.
This reminds me of the time when Dr. Dean, the other liberal that the Dems threw under the bus proclaimed that he wanted the southern guys with the Confederate flag on their pick-up trucks to return to the Democratic Party where the bread and butter issues served them better. I saw the old but “now improved” Dems go through the same kind of panicky and embarrassed paroxysm then.
LikeLike
Liberal self-loathing is symptomatic of, among other things, guilty knowledge that no matter how progressive we pretend to be, we owe our privilege to the country’s legacy of unrepentant racial domination. Until this circumstance is confronted and redressed in a manner that avoids political dilution–no compromising, no holding on to undeserved gains–this country will remain an account of the costs and benefits of racism.
This has nothing to do with whether or not particular voters purport to consider race in their assessment of Obama. Racism has so little to do with will or cognition, much more to do with the unfolding of history, which takes no heed of individual opinions, nor for that matter of one presidential candidate’s strategic diagnosis of small-town folks’ bitterness.
That Obama made his fairly unremarkable (if also mostly non sequitur) comment in San Francisco helps a bit to explain it. The Bay Area likes to rest on progressive laurels. It encompasses a large number of acquisitive, proprietary people who enjoy being reminded of their paternalistic superiority. “Everybody wants to live here,” my wife and I were informed when we first arrived, and not merely because of the pleasant weather. I suspect Obama intended his remarks tacitly to distinguish small towns and their travails from big, gaudy, cosmopolitan, expensive, learned San Francisco, and to invite his audience to vote for him to help generously to understand the Pennsylvanians’ and save them from their plight…but at a distance. (Nobody in ‘frisco wants to live there, after all.)
LikeLike
Liberal self-loathing is symptomatic of, among other things, guilty knowledge that no matter how progressive we pretend to be, we owe our privilege to the country’s legacy of unrepentant racial domination. Until this circumstance is confronted and redressed in a manner that avoids political dilution–no compromising, no holding on to undeserved gains–this country will remain an account of the costs and benefits of racism.
I agree 100%. That is why I feel disturbed and amused when recent immigrants claim to be non-racist (while buying into the mentality of the majority community hook, line and sinker) because they “did not own slaves” or install Jim Crow laws. I have asked some of them if they would have emigrated to this country had it not been for the economic advantage (much of it, benefits of racism) the US has to offer. People tend to forget that.
So, the question is about Obama. How does that play into his presidency? What price does he have to pay for his skin color (remember it is not his race – he is bi-racial)? The racists won’t vote for him no matter how good he is as a candidate because he is black . The “self-loathing” liberals will vote for him, no matter how weak he is as a candidate only because he is black. So where does he get his break and run on his own merit? That is the question I have.
As for the self loathing liberals showing their true colors when their hold on “undeserved gains” is threatened, no body has illustrated that characteristic more blatantly than our “first black president” and his wife who are now running as a blue collar white working class couple (last seven year income = $109 million), the one section of society (along with Asian immigrants), that is still unapologetic about its racism.
LikeLike
Now, here is something interesting. Everyone is an “elitist” when it suits the occasion. An excerpt:
“You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I’m from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they’re gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they’ve been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country’s coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, ‘What happened to everybody’s job? What happened to everybody’s income? What … have … you … done … to … our … country?’” Bill Clinton, in 1991 running against George H.W. Bush.
Please read the whole thing to find out what Hillary’s campaign actually thinks when no one is listening.
LikeLike