Obama's minions are predictably spinning away regarding his
"bitter" remarks about Pennsylvanians. Their main line of argument seems to be he was simply telling the truth.
Well, he was saying what he thought, but is it the truth?
Actually, his elitism, as I've said, isn't what really bothers me. I assume most politicians, for all their talk about the wisdom of the people, are elitists. If they didn't think they were good at running our lives, they wouldn't be running for office.
Trouble is, Obama's elitism ends up with him dismissing ideological opposition as so much confusion and fear. Alas, this is not a new side of the man. In fact, it was what turned me off when he made his well-received speech on race.
Let me go back in particular to one section, where he discusses affirmative action:
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.
He's trying to be even-handed, but he just can't bring himself to say that any whites haven't been privileged (after all, they've got
White Skin Privilege), so all his statements are conditional. He might as well be talking about a child worried about a monster under the bed--the fear is real, the belief is not.
Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch.
"As far as they're concerned." Those lucky whites who sweated to build a life here just don't get it.
They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor.
Ah, now we're getting an inkling of the real problem. Globalization and big corporations. Government-mandated racial bean-counting--or perhaps any major social program--couldn't really make anyone mad. (And what about the millions who oppose such programs but are doing just fine personally, thank you?)
They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
So here we have it, and it sounds just like his "bitter" statement. The real enemies are corporations and the free market itself, not properly reined in by government. And because of these evils, confused white people blame busing (busing?), race-based affirmative action and crime. (He'd later add guns and Bibles to the mix.)
Think of this. There's apparently no principled opposition to "benign" racial preference. If you don't like it, Obama's way of reaching out is letting you know you're simply mistaken. He wants a dialogue on race, but how can we have one if we can't talk openly and honestly about these programs--which might be a bad solution to a problem, even if whites are privileged, by the way.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.
All those voters the Dems lost to Republicans--it was just a mistake. What's The Matter With Kansas? and all that. If only whites could see things more clearly, they'd know how to vote. Meanwhile, serious reform of welfare and affirmative action is off the table. (Wait, didn't we do the first one? And didn't it work out okay?)
Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends.
Exploitation? Crime is, and has been for some time, a legitimate campaign issue. I admit it's been a winner for Republicans, but does that mean all that talk is merely a cynical ploy?
Let's look at the
U. S. crime rates from when Reagan took office to today. In 1980, the murder rate per 100,000 was 10.2. In 2006 (most recent year available), it's down to 5.7. Rape, down from 36.8 to 30.9 (and it might even be better than that since reporting rates have arguably increased). Robbery, down from 251.1 to 149.4. Burglary, down from 1684.1 to 729.4. Theft, down from 3167 to 2206.8. Vehicle theft, down from 502.2 to 398.4.
These drops are stunning. Now there are a lot of potential causes, but it seems to me at the very least, crime is fair game for politicians, and rather than merely exploiting fear for political ends, they seem to have done something about it.
Talk show hosts and conservative commentators
Nothing to say about liberal commentators?
built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Black anger--justified. White anger--false consciousness.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive,
Not mistaken, just counterproductive
so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
So white concerns may be misguided and even racist, but the actual problems underlying them--the problems Barack believes in and wants to talk about--are real. Thanks for starting the conversation.