You’ve probably already seen this article about race and the 2008 campaign. Supposedly, if people in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and NY hadn’t been such ignorant bigots, Obama would have won by bigger margins. That’s assuming that there was nothing more important on the electorate’s mind.
It’s an interesting study but I can’t imagine why this would be of any particular interest to anyone. Obama won. That means enough people were either able to overcome the conditioning of their culture or they were scared shitless about the market collapse. What it *doesn’t* mean is that the people who were googling racist jokes would have voted for Obama if they had been more enlightened people. For those of us who realize that race is a social construct and not a biological one, Obama’s skin color did not factor into our decision. If you’re really post-racial, you evaluate the candidate by criteria that is important for successful presidents. A candidate who weaponizes racism, whether real or merely convenient, against hard working people who are concerned for their own livelihoods, is not that much different than the guy who is googling the N word. If anyone is being prejudiced here, it might be the Obama campaign who assumes that everyone in Appalachia is hiding an ignorant redneck heart.
There are some questions I’d like the answers to about this study, which I have only glanced at briefly. For example, what about the people in these states that don’t have computers and have never used google. I have relatives who fall into this category. They’re more likely to google a recipe for halushka, if they had a computer or any interest in using one. They were not fans of Obama but hardly racists, considering the diversity in their own families. The study makes me think of Gallup polls that report on people the surveyers contacted by phone. Presumably, that means landline. But what if you don’t have a landline? How would Gallup contact you to know what you think? A phone survey might oversample older people who may not believe in evolution while showing a drop off of people who do because younger people don’t need landlines. Or, the study could be finding that race was part of the general atmosphere of 2008 and people were following up on stories they had heard. It might be a voyeur effect. And how do you account for NJ turning up ranked #17 on the list? I’ve never met any racists here in NJ and I’ve lived here for 2 decades.
Then there are the unanswered questions about whether Obama’s ill-timed remarks about bitter, gun-totin’, church goers before the Pennsylvania primary might have had any effect on the primaries in that state or the subsequent one in West Virginia. Obama seemed to go out of his way to insult everyone in Appalachia long before a single vote was cast for him there. Why aren’t we questioning his stereotypes and prejudices towards the voters in these states? If you listened to the Obama campaign, you’d think that Appalachia consisted of nothing but toothless, moonshine smuggling rednecks. I don’t doubt that there are some places in central PA where those people exist but I never spoke to one when I was phone banking or canvassing there. Did the study author bother to explore the effect of Obama’s snubs on these primary outcomes? Another question that I’m dying to have the answer to is how many searches of the form “hillary, bitch” came out of lower Manhattan or “redneck” from Chicago, Illinois? Why don’t we find out whether making the men of this country less sexist would have lead to the first female presidency?
Or would we hear howls of protest? Hillary must be judged by a completely different set of criteria. She and her husband were centrists, they’ll say.
Ok, I’ll bite. Would a guy who wanted to appoint the first female attorney general, who raised taxes on the wealthy, appointed two of the most liberal judges on the supreme court we have today, put health care reform at the front of his agenda, got the Family Leave Act passed, protected children’s health care with SCHIP, stared down Republicans when they shut down government and was in favor of having gays serve openly in the military years before Obama kinda sorta got around to reversing DADT, would that guy be considered centrist today?
I have a lot of differences with my own party even though I consider myself solidly liberal. But one of the most striking differences has to be how history is remembered. It is illogical to judge the Clintons as more “centrist” than Obama. In fact, the only way that the word centrist becomes negative against the Clintons is when it is taken out of context and when the comparison to Obama is not made. Instead, centrism is mapped to the Americans Elect, Thom Friedmanesque monstrosity, that thing without a soul. It ignores the fact that centrism in 1993 was a primarily a description of where the Clintons were on the left. On a scale of 1=>10, leftiest Democrat to rightiest Republican, the Clintons were about a 3.8. Now that the scale goes to 15, it is Obama who is centrist at about an 8 and the Clintons look solidly liberal when the issues and voting records are compared.
Lefties seem disgusted by DADT and DOMA that were implemented in Clinton’s terms but forget (or were too young to pay attention) that it was during the Clinton administration when the topics first landed on the national scene and in the case of gays in the military, it was Clinton who brought it up in the first place and wanted to allow gays to serve. I’m betting that many young Democrats don’t know that and their lefty elders aren’t setting the record straight.
What I think bothers lefties the most about Clinton was not his “centrism”, although he probably referred to himself as a centrist back then. It was that he was not dogmatic in his lefty beliefs. Dogmatism plagues both ends of the political spectrum. When people complain about partisanship, they’re really complaining about dogmatism, that persistence in believing in theories in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Dogma has relatively little to do with politics and has almost everything to do with identity. It also has little to do with rationality and a lot to do with emotion.
I was more than a little disappointed to see Charles Pierce jump on lefty revisionism in one of his latest Netroots Nation posts. One of the reasons I stopped going to these events was because I wasn’t willing to empty my brain so that it could fully absorb the dogma saturated atmosphere. Plus, I find crunchy granola, anti-vaccine, anti-nuclear energy, anti-genetically modified everything really irritating, not to mention that people who can’t differentiate between corporate shareholders and stakeholders have no idea what they’re talking about when they wail against all “corporatism”. Netroots Nation is not much different than a CPAC convention. Both entities have solid beliefs that they base their solutions on but they have little to do with observation, data collection, careful analysis, construction of a model, proposing policies and evaluating the effect of those policies on the model. Dogmatists don’t usually like to have their beliefs evaluated.
If there is a recent surge in interest in the Clintons, it’s probably because voters realize that one is still available. And it’s not voters, specifically the working class and women, who are looking forward to Hillary in 2016. No, voters would prefer to have her now. It is the party leadership who wants to create the expectation of a Hillary 2016 run. They’re hoping that delayed gratification will help focus voter attention on the here and now where they have presented Obama as the only choice. But I don’t think that’s going to work this year. And it’s great that Obama is finally getting feisty but I don’t think he’s trustworthy. It’s not just his actions that make him suspect. It’s primarily his contempt for voters in general.
Maybe quality doesn’t always triumph over mediocrity. But I think that when people have had experience of both, without a dogmatic filter, their brains are able to synthesize an evaluation based on information they have gathered, whether consciously or not. I made this point in 2008 about presentation and how a speaker who does his or her homework will shine over someone who has baffled the audience with bullshit. The political consultant class who thinks that voters don’t know the difference may be indulging in wishful thinking. Sure, there are the Fox News viewers who are suffering from acquired stupidity syndrome but what about the other half of the population? They now have the kind of information about Obama that wasn’t available to them in 2008.
It’s not the dogmatists at Netroots Nation that will decide the election this year. It’s going to be the base that the Democrats blew off in 2008. I’m sure the Democrats aren’t happy about that but calling them racists is probably not going to work this time. They gave Obama a chance and he has come up severely wanting. This upcoming performance evaluation is based on actual performance. And if the working people are chattering about Clinton, it’s not because Mark Penn has anything to do with it.
What we might really be seeing is frustration on the part of the party loyalists, Obama fan base and self-described intellectuals towards the electorate that refuses to eat its poison mushrooms. Those working class idiots don’t know what’s good for them, they want a “centrist”, they’re racists, they’re stupid. But mostly, those working people and women and independents have way too many votes. There’s a lot of howling going on right now from the lefty dogmatists who simply want to believe what they want to believe, damn the facts and life and imminent poverty staring people in the face everyday. But might I suggest that calling people racists and politically naive is not the best way to win friends and influence people. Since the great unwashed masses are the ones who are going to determine this election in the fall, whether the lefties like it or not, a much better idea would be to give them what they want before they go to the polls.