The long thread of condescension
Lance on Apr 14 2008 at 8:36 pm | Filed under: Around the Web
Courtesy of Mickey Kaus we have a thorough dissection of Obama’s condescension. It is far reaching, and pervasive.
Sphere: Related Content16 Responses to “The long thread of condescension”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
He raises four points. But they don’t make sense.
1) Having been on the receiving end of it, I am okay with Obama dissing rural conservatives’ “explicit religiosity” (to borrow Kaus’ term, though he doesn’t seem comfortable with the more appropriate “fundamentalism”). Having a large group of people you thought were friendly become borderline violent because they think God tells them to hate (gays, blacks) is not a pleasant experience, and such people deserve condescension.
2) According to the Anti-Defamation League, eastern Pennsylvania hosts a large concentration of racist skinhead groups.
3) Kaus relies on Instapundit simply stating contradictions on guns and trade exist without actually listing them (while Instapundit links to people expressing their feelings, rather than textual evidence). While this proves nothing about Obama’s statements, it makes me wonder how much Kaus really read Obama’s positions vice his speeches, and how much he prefers to work off innuendo and impressions (i.e. false but nevertheless accurate).
4) When is a politician running for President not condescending? Did Kaus fly off the hook about John McCain pretending to be a civil rights advocate while having a black guy hold his umbrella underneath the balcony where MLK was shot? Of course not. But the conservative meme is that Obama is especially condescending or patronizing or elitist in comparison to Hillary and McCain. And that is a much tougher case to make. It’s easier to make it in isolation and pretend the other two are better.
I dunno. It sounds to me like Kaus could use a bit more context in his arguments (I was unaware “OMG POLITICIANS ARE ELITIST” was insightful). And how does this imply anything about whether or not Obama would be a good President?
Oh, and digging all the way back to 2004 is “far reaching,” and “pervasive?” Maybe I didn’t read it closely enough, but I didn’t get that part.
1. They may deserve it in your mind, but the condescension is nevertheless there.
2. He wasn’t talking about skinheads, but average Pennsylvania small town types.
3. Uh, read his statement. he says people oppose Free Trade because of their struggles, meanwhile opposing it himself (though I think he knows the position is wrong, hence his Goolsbee connection.) I guess he opposes it for high minded reasons, or more likely because he thinks it will get him votes. Clear contradiction. Insty didn’t explain it because he had done so earlier. For that matter, I did in a previous post on this. Similar answer on guns. Kaus has also covered the issues before.
4. As argued here previously, the point isn’t whether he is a typical politician, it is that he says he is somehow different, and his followers argue the same. That in fact is his whole appeal, it certainly isn’t his keen grasp of issues or detailed policy statements.
Also, we don’t buy the straight talk express either in these here parts, so complaining about me noticing Obama’s board in the eye and ignoring McCain’s mote just doesn’t fly. It doesn’t with Kaus either since he is a Democrat, voted for Kerry, and will undoubtedly vote for Obama over McCain if he is given that choice. He provides a useful service for Democrats if they would listen instead of fuming about him attacking Democrats. He is a one man gang of “Democrats get out of your cocoon or you will lose” advice. Damn good advice at that.
Addendum: it is his condescension that is far reaching and pervasive, not Kaus’ “research.” The meme doesn’t exist for no reason. People get that vibe from him. Personally I kind of like him, but his self regard is pretty high even by politician standards. Which means you have to be a pretty nice guy to overcome that albatross. He does it pretty well. Still, there it is. Exactly why pointing it out bothers you I don’t get. It isn’t as if he agrees with you on many issues, nor that he is some bastion against the gay haters you describe above. Remember, he is closely associated with gay haters that would make Jerry Falwell blush. We are talking Fred Phelps territory, so on that kind of thing exactly where he gets off looking down on people for narrow mindedness is pretty damn amazing, or why you would defend him on those kind of terms.
It’s not that it bothers me, it’s more that these things are not as open-and-shut as the flapping heads like to make it out to be. I’m still trying to see the scandal in Obama thinking poorly of intolerant hicks. I do too, and I think most people, even most conservatives, do as well (I’m avoiding noting the “white guilt”-style condescension of conservatives in big liberal cities bemoaning the loss of virtuous small town America, a stance I find much more offensive for its sheer hypocrisy). And I think that’s a good thing. About the rest… again, looking as far back as a speech in 2004 doesn’t strike me as either far reaching or as condescension.
That being said, I won’t vote for him. I like that he represents an outsider to the system, but his positions are almost as out of touch as McCain’s. So this isn’t born out of some instinctive desire to defend him… I just don’t understand where all the innuendo comes from. It’s like the old bromide accusing Hillary Clinton of being a lesbian: yeah, you could probably argue for a variety of reasons it exists, but what does it matter? How this would impact an Obama presidency is still left unsaid by those who think it’s a big deal.
Like I said, maybe it is because a lot of people don’t think they are intolerant hicks. More importantly, it is bad politics. As has been said, don’t let the rubes know what you think of them.
For the record, I don’t consider rural Americans a bunch of intolerant hicks, at least no more intolerant than, well, you and Obama are. Nor do I agree with his contention that people of faith who hold to second amendment rights are ignorant hicks, nor do I believe that the reason they hold those views is because they are bitter about their economic struggles. So he is just wrong about all that. But pardon if those very same “ignorant hicks” don’t like his condescension, or yours, whatever I think of his claims.
“again, looking as far back as a speech in 2004 doesn’t strike me as either far reaching or as condescension.”
Once again, the speech is just one piece of evidence. I say his condescension is far reaching and comprehensive. I would have said that without the speech, or the post, they are independent of each other, though Kaus’ post does support my assertion. So you can say that as many times as you like, but my statement was my statement. I didn’t make it because of anything in the post, the post was just evidence. It is kind of like if I said to you that Glenn Greenwald is a dishonest prick before linking to a post which was a glowing review of him. Replying that the post doesn’t prove my case is totally beside the point. Every time I write something I don’t have to post a bibliography and footnotes so that every post is a complete reference piece to the phenomena I am discussing. Mickey’s post was not what was claimed was far reaching, so pointing out that it wasn’t is not germane. Obama’s condescension is far reaching, and quite germane.
He isn’t an outsider, he is an insider of great skill. That is a thrust of what I have been arguing. That outsider bit is pure hokum, and you come off as a rube for buying it. Plenty of ignorant hicks have proven they might need to condescend to you, because they see it if you don’t.
That you don’t get why I would point that out in a discussion of politics is as unfathomable as if you wondered why people mention that McCain is a windbag. Obama is a man who looks down on most people even as he claims to be there for those very same people. Surprise, those very same people resent him saying that. It also makes him a hypocrite. He claims to be non ideological with the most liberal, or close to it, voting record in the Senate. He is a highly connected pol who has gotten there by hiding his beliefs, sleeping with whoever it took to get in with the powers that be in Illinois, etc. Typical Chicago pol.
By the way, it is a good question how Hillary’s supposed lesbianism would impact Obama’s Presidency, I ain’t sure either ;^)
However, I think the impact of being less than he claims to be, as well as a prejudiced, condescending guy who cavorts with gay bashers might impact his election chances! Get it Josh? This is commentary about the election, hence it matters if such things matter to the electorate! Now, I think some of this stuff should matter to the electorate, but whether it should or not is beside the point. It does.
Umm, I don’t Kaus was his audience for that speech. Bygones. Anyway, I don’t dispute that it was dumb politics (hell, TNR thinks the same thing), but this is all still going on feeling and innuendo. I suppose that matters a lot, but it’s not substantive… which this blog usually tries to highlight.
As for my gullibility, I said “represents,” which is important to distinguish from “is.” He has everyone on the Right worried, and that is a good thing — far too many were licking their lips at the prospect of a Hillary run. Now they have to prove they’re worth electing, which is a far more complex, and potentially losing, prospect. Even though I am opposed to a McCain presidency, I think having to fight for one’s position in the halls of power is healthy no matter the party (just as I think the current bifurcated race between Hill and Barry is healthy for the Dems).
The charge of Obama sleeping with people to get to the top is a new one to me. I didn’t know he was such a slut.
Oooh, and quick quibble: this isn’t about “rural Americans,” at least the way Kaus was spinning it. It was about rural people in Eastern Pennsylvania, in which case the region’s out-sized hospitality toward white supremacists is certainly worth noting when considering whether they tend to be intolerant hicks.
Unless using all generalization is suddenly off the table. In which case we better never talk about groups of people again, ever.
“OMG politicians don’t know enough to pretend they aren’t elitist” might be an issue that’s important.
Wait, so should Obama lie to us about what he really thinks, then? I don’t get what the right expects of him: don’t say what he really thinks while being honest about what he believes?
No wonder he can’t do it.
I think it’s about Kansas, Josh. Obama himself cites his interview with Charlie Rose where he discussed the Kansas question in very much the same terms as evidence that he’s not saying anything new or unusual. Sure, it’s about Pennsylvania, too. It’s about why any particular group doesn’t seem receptive to either the Democratic message in general or Obama’s message in particular. It’s an old and well worn question… why do these people not appreciate my message? Why do they vote against their interests?
How do you react if someone tells you that you don’t know your own mind?
Well, if ti was caged in those terms — “I don’t understand why my message isn’t appealing,” I think there would be a similarly snide reaction: Obama doesn’t know why he’s unpopular! Look at how unsuitable he is to be President!
I’m of the opinion that the Right will never find Obama acceptable, not matter how he portrays himself in public. Just as McCain will never be acceptable to the Left. It’s just the nature of partisan politics.
Should Obama lie? I suppose not. Should he understand why someone might find his analysis of their thought processes insulting? Yes. He should. But apparently he doesn’t understand and finds this all a bit baffling.
His analysis of the motivation of those people is an implicit claim to understand their motivation.
McCain isn’t acceptable to most of those on the right.
McCain is acceptable to most on the right, he just isn’t prefered given his similarity to Bush and how he tends to work with the Left a little bit too much.
Book’s wizard of ooze post really highlights the train derailment that is Obama.
“Unless using all generalization is suddenly off the table. In which case we better never talk about groups of people again, ever.”
Except once again, he wasn’t talking about white supremacists, but why rural voters tend to have the opinions on the issues he was speaking about, and of course that is why they won’t vote for him. It is offensive, even if I agreed with you that it was true. Frankly, I don’t like talking about groups of people in that kind of general and condescending manner. I am not in favor of that kind of analysis whether I am talking of rednecks, blacks, jews or poofters.
If you want to talk about certain attitudes, talk about them. You disagree with their love of their guns, or their faith, or whatever. You don’t turn them into a victims, who if they only let we better than you types fix your world you wouldn’t have such backward views. One can disagree, or even condemn certain views, but that condescending crap don’t fly with me. It is news because it is a stupid way to get votes, it is offensive because he can’t even have the courtesy of just saying they are wrong, or those who have such views are close minded or bigots, instead he infantilizes them.
You seem to think this is about the right wing. It isn’t. It is about Obama, what kind of guy he is. No, he doesn’t have to lie, but then we shouldn’t have to lie about how offensive his truths are, or how offensive the way he says them is. He, and you it seems, suspects that religious types are really closet bigots, many of us suspect liberals of a certain stripe such as Obama are elitist, condescending snobs who feel they have the right to control everybody because they are better and smarter. Maybe he is right, but Obama just told us we are right about him as well. Pardon us for noticing.
The next time a politician utters some racist bilge I’ll be sure to raise the, “what does it have to do with how good a president he will be” and “should he lie about what he thinks,” defenses. No, he shouldn’t lie. Now that the truth is out people can vote accordingly. Some comments that people believe truthfully are still negative. If I say I think gays are immoral and should be barred from being around our young, you should be glad for my honesty as you point out how offensive you feel what I am saying is.
Or more on target, let us imagine that a white politician claimed that the reason black people “cling” to their faith and are so prejudiced toward gays is because of their economic situation which makes them hold these irrational beliefs, and thus were easy targets for manipulation by their pastors. Now, I suspect they would be rather offended. Some because they would resent the group generalization, others because they would claim their faith had deeper roots than that, that they were manipulated by their pastors, etc. The left would be apoplectic. It doesn’t matter if I actually agreed with some aspects of the comment, I would still point out how dumb it is, that it proves they are prejudiced (which it does, whatever the truth behind the prejudice) etc. The person just said he looked down on black people, whatever the excuse for his comment, or how much some may say it has merit. I think people just might notice that. So it is with Obama. he just told us how superior he is to all the hicks. You can find that admirable if you wish.