We all know why Obama spoke the way he did on Monday. The forces transforming the American economy are big and hard to control. If you think your listeners aren’t sophisticated enough to grasp them, it’s much easier to blame those perfidious foreigners for all economic woes. It’s much more heroic to pretend that, by opposing Nafta, you can improve the lives of middle-class voters. Furthermore, these trade deals have become symbolic bogies for union activists. Instead of concerning themselves with the tidal waves washing overhead, they’ve decided to insist on bended-knee submission in the holy war against Colombia.What I don’t understand is why the political consultants prefer this kind of rhetoric. Aren’t there windows in the vans they use to drive around the state? Don’t they see that most middle-class voters are service workers in suburban office parks, not 1930s-style proletarians in the steel mills?American voters aren’t so stupid as to think their problems are caused by foreigners and malevolent lobbyists. When Obama speaks down to his audiences, it makes me so bitter I want to cling to my laptop and my college degree.
Obama’s dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.
Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders — a “paranoid style” of politics rooted in “status anxiety,” etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.
Obama voiced such liberalism with his “bitterness” remarks to an audience of affluent San Franciscans. Perfect.
When Democrats convened in San Francisco in 1984, en route to losing 49 states, Jeane Kirkpatrick — a former FDR Democrat then serving in the Cabinet of another such, Ronald Reagan — said “San Francisco Democrats” are people who “blame America first.” Today they blame Americans for America being “downright mean.”
Obama’s apology for his embittering sociology of “bitterness” — “I didn’t say it as well as I should have” — occurred in Muncie, Ind. Perfect.
In 1929 and 1937, Robert and Helen Lynd published two seminal books of American sociology. They were sympathetic studies of a medium-size manufacturing city they called “Middletown,” coping — reasonably successfully, optimistically and harmoniously — with life’s vicissitudes. “Middletown” was in fact Muncie, Ind.
Of course, false consciousness is exactly what “mainstream” religion reproduces, by its emphasis on orthodoxy as against orthopraxis.
UPDATE: This article by John Judis in TNR (!) is the best of the bunch.  Two excerpts:
Democrats have won over these voters when their advantage on the economy has come to the fore. And they’ve lost these voters when their positions on the economy–or national security–were not sufficiently compelling to overcome the Republican advantage on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. Why? Because with the exception of a few rabid single-issue voters, the white working class hasn’t simply displaced its economic anxiety, or bitterness, onto God, guns, and gay marriage; they’re actually quite concerned about the economy.
*********
These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they’re much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters’ opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological–a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called “false consciousness.” On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade–Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement–he was simply pandering to these voters’ displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, “I am really one of you, and I am not one of them.”
Unfortunately Brooks , Kristol, Dowd and Friedman are most out of touch elitist themselves, Brooks being the most stupid out of all of them…
Unfortunately Brooks , Kristol, Dowd and Friedman are most out of touch elitist themselves, Brooks being the most stupid out of all of them…
You could, you know, refute what Brooks wrote. Bring up some facts or even opinion of your own. Or you could just dismiss the writer as being elitist and stupid himself. I guess whichever is easier and requires less thinking…
Dan, you’re musical tastes are going to get you thrown under the bus by whom ever!!! Classical Liberals?
however, note the latest feelings about the economy. I don’t blame sashal’s list of malcontents either. People are getting thrown under the bus by their employers en masse. Let’s talk about the decline of corporate pensions sometime. Krugman’s claims that decline in union membership is a cause of middle class decline is with much backing but I also blame the reactionary leadership of USA’s trade unions* as also a culprit in the War on the Middle Class.
*remember those beloved “hardhats”? and Reagan Democrats? (have to go back and finish my taxes and the cooking of the books to afford ’em)
I have already argued the merits of the new anti-Obama meme in the answer to Karl’s post below.
But the second choice is easier now, sure I agree, isn’t it the one used by Clinton and McCain campaigns?
We’re supposed to find this ironic, right?
Anyone else go “That’s fucking Brooks, isn’t it?” right about here?
Such formulations are a fine way of determining which American conservatives aren’t.
Imagine Reagan comparing steelworkers unfavorably to receptionists.
Right, you can’t.
Agreed, psycho, that’s grating.
But the essential point, that NAFTA-bashing is engaging in the sort of mentality that O assigns to small-town Pennsylvanians, I agree with.
We’re still talking about bitter? Why aren’t we talking about Bilal Hussein and the consistent wrongness of right wing bloggers? Oops on Darleen and Michelle Malkin and, dare I say, even Pablo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_photographer
Enjoy your day of inferiority complexes and made up outrages.
You don’t sound bitter, do you, John?
Dan:
I’m sure your post #6 is an intelligent contribution to the thread, but when I got to the end of your second sentence, something in the right side bar made it impossible for me to continue.
Kiyomi, she’s available now.
I assume she sings.
She has remarkable…..
Where’s Enoch when you need him?
Ah, another one that doesn’t know what amnesty means. Thanks for stopping by to flash your ass, John.
John, you sound like a very unhappy person. I will pray for you.
If you want to see the festering, spittle-spewing outrage, you can always go to Gleen(s) or Olberdouche.
John, Dan’s right, you sound bitter.
Kiyomi understands you, look into her eyes.
OK, stop that. THOSE ARE NOT HER EYES!!!!
pablo, our miltary concluded that Bilal Hussein is not a real Islamic radical. He only clings to Allah because he is bitter.
And they let him go-no threat…
Bilal Hussein Obama
“A statement by Multinational Forces-Iraq said Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, commander of coalition detention facilities in Iraq, signed the release order after confirming the Iraqi committee’s decision to grant Hussein amnesty  a ruling that drops legal proceedings but does not assume or determine guilt or innocence.”
Readin’ is FUNdamental.
Smirky – They do not read. They just make shit up.
Smirky the Coalition caught the guy red handed, there is no doubt he was a jihadist plant working under AP cover. They released him because the Iraq Government wanted him released. Of course the lefties will never admit that is what happened because that would mean Iraq is a sovereign country and all.
Obama’s apology for his embittering sociology of “bitterness† “I didn’t say it as well as I should have† occurred in Muncie, Ind. Perfect.
I can guaran-damn-tee you that the Democrats in that audience own guns, go to church every Sunday, and are decidedly against illegal immigration.
If Obama thinks his San Francisco comments, and his half-assed explanation, play well in “Middletown,” he’s just wrong.
Democrats in Muncie are largely so because of their union affiliation. (However, almost all of the auto factory jobs are gone now.) Aside from this affiliation, a Muncie Democrat would look to a San Francisco Democrat like the most staunchly conservative Republican he’d ever met.
Trust me, they’re not even the same species.
Sshhhh.
As long as Obama continues to tsk, tsk about the “lesser classes” and their quant little ways in San Francisco, I’m happy.
After all, the mentality of the average San Franciscoan is where the rest of the country is no doubt.
I beg to differ. They read, and don’t make shit up.
However, the sources they draw from, they either make shit up or are in the tank for the other side.
Let’s talk about the decline of corporate pensions sometime.
Let’s do. And when we do, you can debate with me the wisdom of putting contributions together into one big pot in the hope of making that one big pot big enough for everybody vs. giving everyone a pot of their own, and letting that person grow his own pot to suit his needs.
My grandfather had a pension from IBM. He worked 37 years for it. The check he received when he died was exactly the same as when he retired 20 years earlier. No COLA, no nuthin’, and they cut it in half for his widow.
Now ask me what happened to the money he put into buying IBM stock during the 37 years he was working there, which IBM gave him a simple mechanism to do.
George Will’s article contains this nugget, and it distills exactly what I’ve been thinking:
****
John Kenneth Galbraith… argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a “false consciousness” (another category, like religion as the “opiate” of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:
First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.
****
I did five years at an Ivy League, and I can assure you that the denizens there of never question the fact that they are morally superior to the Great Unwashed. The question of humility never comes up. They never say–either in public or amongst themselves–“Hey, just because we’ve got these fancy educations doesn’t mean we know everything. I mean, sure, we’re good at jumping through Academia’s hoops, but that doesn’t mean we know how to run a country, or even a small business, for that matter.”
Because if a SecProgg uttered those words, the rupture in the space-time continuum would surely spell the end of us all.
Damn. Took Jonah Goldberg most of a book to say the same thing.
Of course, Goldberg showed his work.
Et tu, TNR?
The best part about hearing “new proposals” from Congress-persons in the majority party every Presidential election cycle is asking the obvious question ..
If these folks are so f.ing smart, why the H E double hockey sticks haven’t they put their proposals on the docket already ? .. why do we have to wait until they get elected President ?
If their ideas are so great, doesn’t America deserve them today ? Why shouldn’t we be bitter and frustrated that they won’t share, at least not for another 9 months, till their President ?
I can look into thomas.loc.gov and see that Obama hasn’t submitted bills to solve these problems. Shoot .. he and Hiliary are in the majority party of both chambers. So why the wait ?
Do they think that we are that dense ?
Yes, they do .. or perhaps Obama hasn’t found the “in” basket yet.
ha ha, Neo, I was asking that same thing out loud last night. OTOH, look at what McCain has had passed.
George Will quoting J.K.Galbraith? Wonders never cease.
I think Galbraith was talking about corporate elites manufacturing demand among the ‘consumers’ (a Ralph Nader term) in order to sell products that require a design lead time that requires a market made to order for profitable selling of a product designed before a product has even been noticed by the buying public…or something like that.
Hardly a liberal conspiracy of elites in govt.
govt pensions usually have colas and so should corporate ones.
generally 401 Ks have been the substitute but poorly funded and with a lot of ripoffs by brokers as hidden payments.
Um, Dogmadave? I don’t think Will was saying that’s what Galbraith meant. I think he was saying Galbraith’s logic could just as easily apply to politics as to consumerism.
You ignorant slut.
Dicentra
A decade ago a four part documentary exploring the Galbraith assertion you provided from Will was shown on the BBC.
“The Century of the Self”
Again, it was independently produced but broadcast on the BBC. You may need to add salt accordingly.
“govt pensions usually have colas and so should corporate ones.”
Gov’t pensions have colas because they have a bottomless supply of money and public-sector unions full of un-firable “workers” abetted by a lick-spittle press who kick and scream if they don’t get them.
Corporations, not so much.
“generally 401 Ks have been the substitute but poorly funded and with a lot of ripoffs by brokers as hidden payments.”
Right, because pension plans are never poorly funded. Nor do they have ripoffs or hidden payments.
These things being true, what’s the difference, Dave? Can you see it?