Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Context, my boy, context. Obama swiped at my fellow Pennsylvanians while speaking behind closed doors to the wine and cheese set in the Bay. You think he'd have the nads to speak that 'truth' to a crowd in the Allegheny Outback? Hardly.

Cling to religion...cling to guns Tough to portray the populace as mindless gun-toting, bible thumpin' rubes and then turn around a week later asking for their vote.

Well Said Barnett! I hate to think Obama is getting penalized for speaking to Americans as thinking adults. If the American electorate prefers to hear only empty praise and emptier promises then they deserve exactly what they usually get.

I've address this on my blog.

Obama's original words were a political mistake for someone seeking the Presidency, but arguably correct. Politically, the real mistake was describing the stereotypical attributes of a disadvantaged groups as a result of legitimate economic grievances. To put the uproar in context, imagine if Clinton had told the same San Francisco crowd that African Americans clung to their charismatic churches and rhythm-based music as a response to bitter economic conditions.

More troublesome were his follow-up comments in Indiana, where Obama explained "People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them." These are backwards comments for a globalized age: people move up Maslow hierarchy as conditions enable them to discount material demands. In a developed country, people vote for social concerns because their preference for a form of social organization. Of course, one can argue for other factors too (such as a source of comfort in economically uncertain times). But both of these are a long way from saying people vote for cultural matters because their efficacy in cultural political options is positive while their efficacy in material political options is zero. Obama should know better than that.

To paraphrase something written by another . . I have never considered voting for John McCain until given the current choice . .

While some don't like McCain's position of things involving Presidential oversight of the country, at least we know where he is on most of the subjects . . and he will probably change his stance on some of them, but it will be out of necessity, not convenience!

For a presidential candidate we really don't know much about, I found the comments both revealing, and disturbing. The context is important, and part of the revelation.

Your choice to use the word shibboleth is either intentionally ironic or subconsciously brilliant, as it is often used to describe the phrases that the "in-crowd", or in this case what has been labeled "elitists", would use to distinguish members of a group from outsiders.

I see shibboleth used in this situations context as describing religious people and gun owners as desperate nuts clinging to guns and religion as a source of hope, as if there is no other reason to attend church or own a gun. Obama reveals this worldview of his to a group of very wealthy people who openly share this point of view about religious people and gun owners. Shibboleth indeed.

In that way I find it disturbing. He talks a lot about hope, but my hope in him is fading very quickly.

Waco and Ruby Ridge. Forgotton by most, but deeply significant to some. Timothy McVee showed America what terrorists could do before 911. The Federal Building in Oklahoma was blown up by citizens of the United States. People in Washington don't get out to the boonies very much and the talking heads on TV never get out there at all. I have been out there. I have seen the gun, the bible and the flag displayed together. There are some really angry folks in the hinterland. They feel disenfranchised and they don't trust our government. The only thing that suprises me, is that Mr. Obama realizes this. He knows how much bitterness still is in the hearts of Blacks and it appears he also knows about the dusty trailer parks full of poor Whites. As the old saying goes "The truth hurts".

I stand amended.

Good comments.

Okay, I could buy the 'anti-immigrant' angle as being economically driven, but guns and religion? half dozen of stupid half dozen of actual insight, at best.

When smart people make repeated mistakes concerning checking their facts, or watching their words, in their speechifying I wonder if there is another game afoot.

Anyway, when a mature, but fading, economy, society or political establishment faces a significant transition forward, the possible losers see a threat, while the majority of folks don't yet see an opportunity. So progress is difficult in a democracy or republic, or equivalent business community. In the past, the possible losers have been bullied, bribed or tricked into letting the transition happen. Timing is very important.

So is anyone running this transition game, what is the strategy, and which quarter are we in at this point?

At one time I hoped Robert Reich would be our coach, but that seems to have not been possible.

While being a supporter of almost everything Barnett believes, after what McCain went through in the Hanoi Hilton, I find Barnett's comment about McCain "being familiar" with fascism "given his age", and implying McCain would support fascism in a trade-protectionist way, simply insulting to McCain and illogical of Dr. Barnett.

The ideological war to be won for a rising middle class is in the Non-Integrating Gap, like Iraq, is it not?

Who do the majority of our volunteers want as their new Commander-In-Chief, during wartime? How can the majority wishes of our VOLUNTEERS be so easily dismissed, or not even considered during wartime, by such smart people? Is this election about what you want or what our volunteers want?

It seems natural that partisans would spin the discussion in the direction of Obama saying "Cling to religion...cling to guns ... mindless gun-toting, bible thumpin' rubes" or that religious people and gun owners as desperate nuts clinging to guns and religion as a source of hope.

But do they really think that people enduring economic hardship that have not gotten assistance from the government or its policies, that those people are not going to turn their focus to things that they feel are going the right way for them? Would these same commenters say that when church attendance (and xenophobia) went way up after 9/11 that all those people were "rubes" and "desperate nuts"? You might not like human nature, but trying to spin that it doesn't exist only exacerbates the real problems that do exist...

Relax, VWT! I think he was referring to McCain's age-- he's old enough to remember WWII. And familiarity doesn't equal comfort.

A couple more comments:
1) Am I the only one who noticed the irony of people accusing Obama of being out of touch with poor people? He's the one who WORKED with poor people in the past! It's like accusing McCain of being out of touch with soldiers when he's the only one who's been in the military.
2) That said, Clinton's take and Obama's take aren't incompatable with each other; when you don't trust your ability to think your way out of a situation, you rely on emotions instead. It's the same whether you're stuck in persistent poverty, coping with a surprise attack (to address Christopher Thomas' example) or even going through a difficult relationship.

Mr. Obama's comments are consistent with the condensending attitude that the liberal elite have towards those of us in the "lower classes".

Just one point. McCain is no Boomer. He actually remembers Pearl Harbor and was born in 1936. Clinton was born in 1947, well outside the ten year bulge (1954-1964) of top Boomer birth years.

The folks Obama described go to church and own guns regardless of the economy or regardless of their own economic condition. To describe these folks as bitter or disenfranchised because of the economy is only his perspective. I would argue that IF they are truly bitter or disenfranchised, then its because of many social/economic factors, including their own lifestyle choices. But Obama is a Democrat, and thus always looking for another way to justify the expansion of government to solve another social ill. I dread what this man will do with the findings of the 2010 census.

dan -
If you read Obama's "race speech" he actually comes close to saying something similar to what you say about "black churches." There is an overriding theme in Obama's speeches and his books that views religion primarily as a communal force, i.e., something that solidifies a community. While this has many positive aspects, it is also inherently divisive; hence his observation that Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America. When a particular community is alienated, culturally and/or economically, from the larger community, the cohesive effect of religion can provide an outlet for expressions of anger and frustration, which tends to exacerbate the divisiveness. This is Obama's explanation of Rev. Wright's more notorious sermons. Obama is essentially saying that the same phenomenon plays a role in the attraction of politicized religious fundamentalism in "rust belt" communities (mainly white) that have been left behind in the process of globalization. I tend to agree with you on your second point. Obama probably stands a better chance of picking up votes among upper middle class and upper class voters who may be traditional Republicans but may be inclined to vote against their economic interests (i.e., by supporting a Democrat) because they are put off by the anti-intellectualism, jingoism, and fiscal irresponsibility that has taken on such a prominent role in the Republican Party. If only he could free himself from the chains of protectionism that have trapped the Democratic Party.

"The folks Obama described go to church and own guns regardless of the economy or regardless of their own economic condition."

That's just it, Frank. If times are tough, religious people are going to seek religious havens. Family people are going rely on family and friend networks to get by. Gun people are going to rely on their firearms to do what they don't trust the police to. When they lose the belief that they can change their economic circumstances at the voting booth, they're going to vote the issues (be it religion, family or guns) that have helped them deal with their poverty.

He said something true when he should have been pandering. Americans are spoiled children who need to hear only self-esteem building pap from pols, right?

The fact is I come from a ruralish family in an area that was economically crushed in the eighties and has never come back. On holidays my family traditionally pulls out a dozen or so guns and they all go shooting. What Obama said was was correct in every sense. After many years of millionaire ivy league "populists" like bush/cheney and the Clintons people don't believe that the government is ever going to look out for their interests. Explaining this fact to a bunch of SF elites shows exactly what Obama really is. I hang with academics these days, who mostly have an easy time sneering at those dumb white gun toting hicks, while being blind to their own privelege. Thanks Obama.