New York magazine columnist Kurt Andersen (who is like me a declared Obama voter) has had some great observations all this election season on the Democratic primary and how it reflects American culture. He has a new column this week about the "elitism" issue:
About That Crush on Obama: If Barack Obama Is Out of Touch With America, Is the Media Too? New York Magazine [115 comments]
Obama is educated, thoughtful, twigged to nuance, a lovely writer, well-traveled, witty, cool, dignified, candid, a little quixotic, a clued-in grown-up but not yet ruined by the ugly facts of Washington life.There's a great general insight here about politics and the media's internalized anti-intellectualism. In the eyes of the press, it's fine to be Ivy-educated and extremely smart—but only if you're willing to show the requisite shame for it by recognizing that you must pretend to be regular folks. Being smart, successful and highly educated and not trying to hide it: that's snobby.
The world depicted in the media is overwhelmingly a bright, shiny, upscale, youngish world. Uneducated white people, residents of the so-called C and D counties, and the elderly—Hillary Clinton voters—are seldom allowed into the mass-media foreground, and when they appear it’s usually as bathetic figures, victims or losers.
And working-class black pop culture is considered part of the sexy mainstream in a way that working-class white pop culture is not.
Certain journalistic stars these last few weeks , instead of copping to the “elitist” sensibilities they obviously share with Obama (and the Clintons and McCain)—we travel abroad and read books, we have healthy bank accounts and drink wine—reacted by parroting the Clinton campaign’s faux-populist talking points about Obama’s condescension toward the yokel class.
But pandering to the yokels, pretending to share their tastes and point of view? That goes pretty much unchallenged. If the wellborn New England Wasp George W. Bush could be successfully refashioned as a down-home rustic, why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton be talkin’ guns and drinkin’ Crown Royal shots and droppin’ all the g’s from her gerunds whenever she speaks extemporaneously these days?
comments
-Chaddog: The issue with Obama and Clinton is not that "it's fine to be Ivy-educated and extremely smart—but only if you're willing to show the requisite shame for it by recognizing, that you must pretend to be regular folks." I mean, no one really expects to run in to the Obamas riding the El or bus in Chicago on their way out to watch a NASCAR race at Chicagoland Speedway, or Hillary Clinton waiting in line at 4 am for the Walmart after Thanksgiving sale so she can grab a cheap television, while Bill heads out with the boys for some hunting. Rather, the issue is respect and genuineness. I wouldn't expect Clinton or Obama to be huge NASCAR fans, but I do expect them to respect the millions of NASCAR fans in this country. I don't expect to see them out doing shots of whiskey at a dive bar, but I do expect them to understand and respect the fact that doing the occasional boilermaker is real and fun for millions of Americans, and not look down their nose at it.
And as an Obama supporter, I guess that's why I find Clinton so off-putting: the pandering and shots and speaking from the bed of a pickup truck isn't Hillary "being one of us", but rather her pretending to be something she's not, and in the process demeaning it as beneath her. I don't get the same feel from Obama - he's still shooting hoops, which he did long before he was a candidate. Sure he went bowling, but he sucked, admitted it, and still said he had fun and had a few beers while he did it. Slight pandering, but no one (at least not me) was hurt because Obama never came in trying to be something (i.e. a good bowler who regularly frequented the alley in his neighborhood) that he was not. Nor did he insult or pander in regards to the millions of people that enjoy bowling.
Anyways, I think the issue is not "being what they're not" but rather Obama and Clinton actually respecting the genuine likes of people unlike them. It's amazing that the Democratic party has such a problem when the "multiculturalism" is drawn on class, rather than racial-religious-sexual preference lines.
-JamesP: @Chaddogg: There's actually nothing in your response I'd disagree with. I think the distinction here is that Andersen (and I in responding to them) are characterizing how the MEDIA judges candidates' handling of the "elitism" question you should act like regular folks or you are a snob, and you're talking about how, you know, actual voters with common sense see it you should respect us, and be real. I tend to agree with you, in that the typical voter probably does not care if a candidate bowls or does shots or hunts: they just don't want to feel looked down on themselves for doing it. But they way the press has covered this matter in the campaign is: Ah, she's drinking a shot and a beer! Well played! Oooh, he bowled a 37! Bad move! But he got four baskets in that pickup game! Nice recovery! etc. The political press covers the perceived effectiveness of the pander rather than the actual authenticity.
-Shara Says: @James and Chaddog - good points all around. I totally agree with Chaddog that Clinton's pandering is increasingly transparent, and increasingly insulting. Maybe I'm walking a strange line here: I'm a southern Knoxville girl who likes my whiskey straight up and wants my various uncles to have all the guns they want. I'm also politically progressive, I was raised by middle-class parents, both of whom were raised in poverty, and Mr. Shara Says and I barely break even most months. I have a strong appalachian accent, as well as degrees in politics and law. So what box do I fit in? Definitely not in Hilary's. She irritates the bejezus out of me with her fake accent and her fake photo ops and her fake sincerity and her manipulative catch phrases. On the other hand, Obama appears to be a dude who can handle dealing with real differences among people in a meaningful and significant way , which makes Hilary only look even more desperate to me.
So why is she suddenly gaining (some) ground, when everything she does and says is so obviously fake? My initial thought is that Hilary, with her pandering, is taking advantage of people who just don't know better. I wonder if the way I perceive her is colored by my political/legal education. But then my grandmother, who never got to go to high school, can take one look at Hilary and recognize insincerity a mile away.
My only reflection is that ... Obama looks at these different groups and offers to view them in context with everyone else. He offers to take their issues and find patterns & parallels to help them see connections (race, class, etc.) that they might not have perceived before, to help us face our demons and become better, as a society. But he does not offer them the comfort of remaining an isolated "other" hm who want NASCAR and guns and tradition and the rest of the world be damned. He wants to uplift everybody, and some people just don't want to be uplifted, because they're scared of change. hmm. Hilary offers to wear a flag pin and recognize -nay, emphasize- their "otherness" well their identity (I dunno if it's an identity of otherness ~though, okay, may be in opposition to highbrow snobs) in stereotypical ways, and, in doing so, she appears less threatening to their way of life. Maybe its obviously manipulative, but people are used to being manipulated by politicians. People are used to valence symbols being thrown around, used to hearing meaningless doublespeak, used to being skeptical of the Gub'ment. Maybe it sucks, but it sucks in a way that they are used to, and in a way that allows them to maintain their identity as an outsider. hm. Obama (in theory) offers something different than that, so people are waffling because they don't know if they really want to leave what is familiar territory for something new: something that would require them to re-evaluate their relationship with the rest of the country, and the rest of the world. And the politics of "hope" can also be scary for people who have had hope before, and seen what came of it: idealism takes courage and patience, especially when society has seen idealism beaten down time and time again by cynicism and partisan crap. Totally gets at the heart of the differences between the campaigns, and about how we are totally torn amongst ourselves about what path to take.
-I'm in the Jon Stewart camp of "elitism" in that I don't want a "regular Joe" to run the country. I want someone who is smarter, more ethical, and more sincere than most of the country and knows it.
-I fear that people are too threatened by those who are smarter than they, whether on the job or in the White House. Who knows--maybe they assume someone highly intelligent can't understand them or their needs? Pandering, right or wrong, nauseating or not, sure seems to work. While I admire Obama for trying to minimize his pandering (because he hasn't avoided it completely), I worry that it will hurt him in a general election. It's cynical, but it's how the game is played, as John McCain has clearly realized.
-Chaddog: See, the Stewart camp is the problem, in that they think Americans are NOT voting for the person who is smartest (in this case equating smarts with the person with the best ideas to lead America). Call this the "What's Wrong With Kansas?" insult. In the book (to paraphrase), the author states that conservatives have "blinded" rural and low-income voters such as the good people of Kansas to vote against their economic interest, which he arrogantly presumes is served best by liberal/Democratic economic policies, and for Republicans due to agreement on social issues i.e. pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc. good, good statement of the book's thesis. The central conceit of the entire argument is that twofold: one that these voters are voting against their economic interest (if anything, economics shows that by voting for smaller government-free trade-market competition they are voting FOR their interests intelligently yeah?), and two that it is somehow stupid or "wrong" to base your vote based on your personal moral judgments (for example, why is it "wrong" to say to yourself "Hey, the government really doesn't have any power over whether I keep my job, so I might as well vote for representatives who will uphold what I view to be traditional moral values"?).
-I think our real point of difference, though, is that I think many people vote more on personality than on issues. I sure do. but do note that 'personality' does probably involve more info re stance on social issues, moral values than re economic policies.
-Chaddog: I just don't think that people are as "dumb" as the media makes them out to me. No one is voting for Clinton because she's throwing back shots, and no one is voting for Obama because he can hoop it up or bowls horribly. And I really don't think Bush won because of a "I speak your language" persona. I think it had a lot to do with the perceived phoniness/weakness of his opposing candidates. I mean, let's face it - if Bye Bye Birdie is correct and "You Gotta Be Sincere" is the mantra for successful campaigns, Al "Alpha Male Today?" Gore and John "Voted For It Before I Voted Against It" Kerry don't scream out "sincerity."
It's not being "a man (or woman) of the people" that matters, it's being genuine, sincere, and at least superficially honest. well but the two are easily related ~ being of the people suggests being genuine. and seeming above suggests putting on false airs. Bill Clinton, say what you will about his honesty, always came across as sinceree."I feel your pain," indeed. Reagan was unapologetically sunny, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically conservative. Even this year, the more "sincere" or "genuine" candidate McCain won out over the somewhat polished but strangely artificial one on the Republican side, Romney.
The problem is .. Obama may be sincere and genuine, but he's had trouble making that connection,whether it was due to the fawning of the media at his eloquence, his Ivy educational background, or just the fact that voters are having to reassess their personal sincerity-meters due to the fact that they haven't dealt with a young African-American candidate before, I'll leave to the pundits and others to sort out. It's sincerity, not being "one of us", that voters are looking for.
-I would argue that most Americans want someone smarter than the typical citizen in the Oval Office. I think it's that our definition of 'smarter' may vary. To me, it means being well-read and well-informed, with the ability to select trustworthy advisors and the understanding that it is important to look at all sides of an issue and learn from your own & others' experiences. The ability to give a speech or press conference without butchering important words or phrases is good too. For this reason, I voted for Obama today. (Three months ago, it would never have occurred to me that my IN vote would count for anything.) But I realize others may value McCain's ample experience or Clinton's policy knowledge as contributing to their intellect. That being said, I think there is validity in the argument that people get distracted by the media's (or an opponenent's) caricature of a candidate, or of the issues. I want to have Chaggog's positive view of people very carefully weighing their options & selecting the candidate that best fits their beliefs-needs-positions, but I do feel that some voters focus on more trivial matters (like flag pins) and base their votes on those.
I have to say, this is a far more thoughtful and respectful debate than I have ever seen on Swampland...
-Shara Says: Ahhh, Tuned In, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and the children are all above average.
No comments:
Post a Comment