Raven in Philly here to give a little bit of personal insight on the whole "Elitism" issue with Barack Obama. It will be a cathartic exercise because I really am simply tired of seeing this argument everywhere. I couldn't even make a comment in a good friend's LiveJournal without some wingnut jumping on me about how I'm "wrong" - and this isn't the first time.
My simple opinion is reflected in the title: it's a specious argument and it exists only because the media is failing at it's job and Obama's opponents are worried.
First off, let's define the word specious: apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible
Now for Obama's quote: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
And the part that, apparently, according to a member on my forum, that I should be "condemning" is the part in bold.
My first reaction to this whole "elitist" thing was that it was absurd. What does all these Obama haters mean by "elitist" anyway? I haven't seen any definitions given, but then again, the whole thing makes me so irritated, I don't like to spend too much time looking into it. Second, this is one of those 'pot calling the kettle black' situations (Oh noes, I'm race baiting with kitchenware!) Hillary Clinton and John McCain have no room to throw this "elitist" accusation around whatsoever.
I feel like my intelligence is insulted every time I hear this line of false reasoning because all of them are "elite" by their sheer positions as Senators. They have not only money at their fingertips both in their own bank accounts, but government money also (taxpayers money, our money), but the authority to boot. We, as Americans, elected them into office to give them the authority to govern over our nation. We put them there because they said they were the "best" for the job and now are campaigning for us to elect them as president because they are the "best" for the job. We applaud them for being successful and now we're accusing one of them for being "elitist"? But then, perhaps I am misunderstanding the definition of "elite."
Let's look at the part of the quote we are supposed to be condemning again: "... They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Pardon me, but I live in a family that believes in the misconception that we are "middle class." I'm pretty sure we are not or are at the very bottom, close to falling off. My parents do not have a retirement fund. My father was laid off from his job a long time ago and moved into buisness for himself that has paid off enough to put food on the table, pay the bills and help put myself and one of my brothers in college. This quote that I'm supposed to be condemning (because the underlying accusation here is if I don't, then somehow I'm a bad person) speaks to my experience.
My parents do cling to their religion. They are anti-immigrant to the extent that they have no problem referring to them with racial slurs and want to kick every illegal immigrant out of the country because, you know, they steal jobs. They cling to Fox News. My father has even joined the NRA, receives gun magazines and wants to own a gun. This isn't to say that it's a bad thing, but I'm absolutely flustered as to why he has a sudden need to own a gun in order to feel protected in his neighborhood. We have lived right on the boarder of West Philadelphia for as long as I have been alive and he's just now waking up to the crime that goes on within the city? My father right there fit almost the entire quote (I'm not so sure what his position is on trade) and I'm supposed to condemn Obama for making an thoughtful, yet unfortunate, observation?
Moreover, placing blame instead of accepting responsibility is within the human condition. Placing blame, finding scapegoats, pointing the finger is within our flawed nature. It's nothing new. "Antipathy to people who aren't like them" is not a brand new human trait that has somehow materialized out of nowhere also. I think Obama is right, it's "not surprising" to see this happen.
It angers me to see intelligent people have a knee-jerk reaction to Obama's statement by immediately feeling insulted and going on the defensive, as if somehow, Obama is wrong about his observation because "I'M NOT" bitter or that he was trying to insult the people he was talking about. The only reason I can think of that explains this reaction, other than it being another obvious part of the human condition, is that he must be right in some respect. Granted, not EVERY person living in rual Pennsylvania is going to feel "bitter." But I still think everyone should ask themselves honestly, do you feel bitter about that job you got laid off from? Do you feel bitter about how hard you work and just feel like you can't get ahead for one reason or another that is usually out of your control? Answering "yes" to these sorts of things is not something to be ashamed or insulted and answering "no" may not be a lie either.
With all this said, perhaps I'm missing something?
My impression of the Senator's statement and the follow up statements he has made since in regards to this dumb argument is that he had no intention of being insulting and there's nothing wrong with falling back to things that are supportive (like family, religion, different beliefs). I don't think the Senator was saying this was necessarily a bad thing, but that it was just something that happens when humans face adversity.
The guy that jumped down my throat on my friend's LiveJournal was hooked on the fact that Obama used the word "cling." I'll give that perhaps it wasn't the best word to use, but this doesn't change the fact that it fit my experience perfectly and also turns the whole debate into a circular issue on semantics - another thing that really irritates me. Yes, let's get bogged down in a semantics debate and miss the entire picture.
To me, the entire picture is this: our country has some serious issues from Iraq to economics to race to gas prices. We have had a president for almost eight years now talk about how strong we are and yada yada, go America! Yet when he came into office, we had a surplus and now our dollar has fallen in value. I don't know much about economics, but even I'm thinking to myself, "Hmm... my dollar is not worth as much as it used to be when I was in Europe eight years ago? Something must be wrong." This isn't to say that I'm blaming El Presidente for ruining our economy. I'm not going to get into that because I simply don't know much about the whole situation. I can only recognize that there's something wrong.
And this is what I think Obama has been talking about. He wants to make change and he wants us to believe that we can make this change instead of being bitter and down on ourselves because of hardships caused by things out of our control. My parents like to yell at the television when they watch some "evil Democrat" say things that I think particularly ring true. It's cathartic, it makes them feel like they have some say, that they're important, that they are right and that "evil Democrat" is wrong. This is part of being human and though it's not the healthiest thing to do, it's still not uncommon. It's not surprising. It's being human.
This argument about Obama's false "elitism" is just another sad example of, I guess, denial people like my parents have put themselves in because the reality of being wrong is unacceptable. So instead of taking a moment to be intuitive and give ourselves some constructive criticism, we turn to this "superficially pleasing" accusation to put the other person down because we don't want to feel bad about ourselves.
Frankly, I'm consistently insulted by the media pushing this as some kind of major issue. I feel like my fellow countrymen are being manipulated and for what purpose? Obviously, the purpose is political gain for Obama's opposition, but the media is what is even more insulting. I can understand Clinton and McCain jumping on the bandwagon to get votes - it's expected of a politician, unfortunately. The media has a different job and should know a stupid argument when it sees one. I don't appreciate the assault on my intelligence with this specious argument when there are far more important things going on with my country.
My conclusion to all of this, the only reasonable explanation I can come to, is that Obama is seen as a threat - if he becomes the nominee, he'll get elected. Am I being overly hopeful in thinking that if/when he becomes our next president, he'll kick ass and take names? Possibly. However, it seems that hope is contagious and it's making everyone against Obama scared. If specious arguments are all that McCain and Clinton have against the man, then he's got my vote.