Obama scoring points with rural voters...

[shinerbock]

I want a President who isn't PC also.

However, until Barack openly admits what it is that threatens America (hint: it starts with islamofascism) I'm not really buying the "he gives it to us straight" thing.

[UGAalum94]

And wasn't what he said PC as we generally understand the term?

Isn't it more politically correct to blame people's not adopting the right attitude in the present on the government having failed to deliver in the past, rather than blaming them for their own intolerance or ignorance (as your audience would see it)?

A non-PC response might have been "those rednecks are too stupid to get out of their own way and vote for the party and candidate that is more likely to deliver the goods."

[BigRedBeta]

Read the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. What Obama said is certainly true (I find the religion dropped in there to be very odd in its phrasing, though), and those are things that the Conservative Right have preyed upon for political gain.

A lot of what's being said in this thread is exactly what I was expecting - the rhetoric that liberals can't be for family values, can't be patriots, can't have religious convictions.

My undergraduate degree is in Sociology, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of immediately looking at how outside forces shape people's thinking, rather than focusing on "personal accountability" or making decisions in a vacuum like many psychologists make things out to be. I constantly look at the context in which a person makes a decision, how society has limited their options, or pushed other ideas to the forefront or so on. There's a subtlety in what Obama said, that when I read it, I found it to mean that it's NOT that people are "clinging" to these items/ideas and they're wrong to do so, but that they're "clinging" to them in their politics and politicians have used these ideas to win votes, when the economic policies that these politicians espouse are detrimental to these very same rural voters. It's that subtlety that is undoubtedly being lost by the talking heads, and has lead to Obama going into damage control mode.

In What's the Matter with Kansas?, the author does a pretty impressive job of showing how for the most part, Conservative politicians who run on abortion, gun control, religion in schools, and similar platforms have time and time again failed to make any significant headway on these issues, and yet still win voters by using them over and over. Kansas in particular has essentially become a 3 party state in which there is a ton of infighting between Conservative Republicans (typically poor rural voters worried about cultural items), Moderate Republicans (upper middle class voters from the Kansas City suburbs worried most about economic issues) and Democrats (urban voters in KC and Wichita taking normal Democratic positions). What Obama said, pretty much sums up what has happened in Kansas. Rural voters go against their economic interests because of social issues, vote Republican, which typically results in economic decisions that further harm these rural voters. The mods, they're generally happy enough to take in the social issues for the larger economic goals. It's most notable in Kansas though, that the conservatives have made the Mods uncomfortable about these social issues, because of what that has resulted in (Kansas striking evolution from state science standards and the like).

What this will ultimately end up meaning for Obama, I don't know. I appreciate how he avoids being a 'sound bite' politician, but sometimes it's hard to get your point across when you explain the shades of gray.

[UGAalum94]

Attributing peoples' beliefs to economic circumstances beyond their control is going to be insulting to the people who hold those beliefs though, and that's a big political problem with his comments.

It may seems strange to die hard Democrats, but some people would choose to hold onto religion, gun rights, immigration law even if their economic circumstances did improve. They don't believe what they believe because they are economically bitter; they believe it because they believe these ideas are valuable and true. (It's certainly possible that being more well off makes you be more tolerant as you are exposed to more, but there may be a point where tolerance becomes decadence culturally too.)

It may be true that the Republican party has been more able to exploit this group of voters, but it's also true that if these issues are important to you, the Democrats haven't offered you anything on these issues.

BigRedBeta, I don't doubt for a minute that Republicans are more effective at exploiting the type of voters Obama was talking about and it probably is something that needs to be discussed within the Democratic party, which may have been what Obama thought he was doing. However, that group of voters is going to be even less likely to embrace a politician who tips his hand the way Obama did, especially while he's in the middle of trying to become one major party's Presidential candidate. It basically floats the idea out there that the candidate, not only doesn't take the issues of gun rights, religion and controlling immigration seriously, but also regards the people who hold such beliefs as somehow being delusional. That's not helping bring them in to the party. Maybe we could right another book called The Only Thing More Wrong than Kansas is the Democratic Party's Response.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Read the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. What Obama said is certainly true (I find the religion dropped in there to be very odd in its phrasing, though), and those are things that the Conservative Right have preyed upon for political gain.

Blatant appeal to authority, but I do it too.

A lot of what's being said in this thread is exactly what I was expecting - the rhetoric that liberals can't be for family values, can't be patriots, can't have religious convictions.

nobody said this.

My undergraduate degree is in Sociology, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of immediately looking at how outside forces shape people's thinking, rather than focusing on "personal accountability" or making decisions in a vacuum like many psychologists make things out to be. I constantly look at the context in which a person makes a decision, how society has limited their options, or pushed other ideas to the forefront or so on. There's a subtlety in what Obama said, that when I read it, I found it to mean that it's NOT that people are "clinging" to these items/ideas and they're wrong to do so, but that they're "clinging" to them in their politics and politicians have used these ideas to win votes, when the economic policies that these politicians espouse are detrimental to these very same rural voters. It's that subtlety that is undoubtedly being lost by the talking heads, and has lead to Obama going into damage control mode.

Again, you're (like other liberals) assuming to tell these rural voters what is best for them. I find that the most insulting part of this entire discussion.

In What's the Matter with Kansas?, the author does a pretty impressive job of showing how for the most part, Conservative politicians who run on abortion, gun control, religion in schools, and similar platforms have time and time again failed to make any significant headway on these issues, and yet still win voters by using them over and over. Kansas in particular has essentially become a 3 party state in which there is a ton of infighting between Conservative Republicans (typically poor rural voters worried about cultural items), Moderate Republicans (upper middle class voters from the Kansas City suburbs worried most about economic issues) and Democrats (urban voters in KC and Wichita taking normal Democratic positions). What Obama said, pretty much sums up what has happened in Kansas. Rural voters go against their economic interests because of social issues, vote Republican, which typically results in economic decisions that further harm these rural voters. The mods, they're generally happy enough to take in the social issues for the larger economic goals. It's most notable in Kansas though, that the conservatives have made the Mods uncomfortable about these social issues, because of what that has resulted in (Kansas striking evolution from state science standards and the like).

The GOP uses issues that people are passionate about to rally support. So does the left. Most Republicans (in office) don't care about school prayer, but it is a nice sounding issue that rallies their base. Most Democrats (I believe) aren't passionate about gun control, but it draws upon a dichotomy that many in their base enjoy: that of sophisticated, peaceful individuals intent on resolving conflict amicably (liberals) and the redneck, uneducated, prone-to-violence ruffians who desperately need the government to save them (rural conservatives). While this book sounds interesting, I don't think the concept of political parties using controversial issues to their advantage is revolutionary.

What this will ultimately end up meaning for Obama, I don't know. I appreciate how he avoids being a 'sound bite' politician, but sometimes it's hard to get your point across when you explain the shades of gray.

.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Read the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. What Obama said is certainly true (I find the religion dropped in there to be very odd in its phrasing, though), and those are things that the Conservative Right have preyed upon for political gain.

A lot of what's being said in this thread is exactly what I was expecting - the rhetoric that liberals can't be for family values, can't be patriots, can't have religious convictions.

My undergraduate degree is in Sociology, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of immediately looking at how outside forces shape people's thinking, rather than focusing on "personal accountability" or making decisions in a vacuum like many psychologists make things out to be. I constantly look at the context in which a person makes a decision, how society has limited their options, or pushed other ideas to the forefront or so on. There's a subtlety in what Obama said, that when I read it, I found it to mean that it's NOT that people are "clinging" to these items/ideas and they're wrong to do so, but that they're "clinging" to them in their politics and politicians have used these ideas to win votes, when the economic policies that these politicians espouse are detrimental to these very same rural voters. It's that subtlety that is undoubtedly being lost by the talking heads, and has lead to Obama going into damage control mode.

In What's the Matter with Kansas?, the author does a pretty impressive job of showing how for the most part, Conservative politicians who run on abortion, gun control, religion in schools, and similar platforms have time and time again failed to make any significant headway on these issues, and yet still win voters by using them over and over. Kansas in particular has essentially become a 3 party state in which there is a ton of infighting between Conservative Republicans (typically poor rural voters worried about cultural items), Moderate Republicans (upper middle class voters from the Kansas City suburbs worried most about economic issues) and Democrats (urban voters in KC and Wichita taking normal Democratic positions). What Obama said, pretty much sums up what has happened in Kansas. Rural voters go against their economic interests because of social issues, vote Republican, which typically results in economic decisions that further harm these rural voters. The mods, they're generally happy enough to take in the social issues for the larger economic goals. It's most notable in Kansas though, that the conservatives have made the Mods uncomfortable about these social issues, because of what that has resulted in (Kansas striking evolution from state science standards and the like).

What this will ultimately end up meaning for Obama, I don't know. I appreciate how he avoids being a 'sound bite' politician, but sometimes it's hard to get your point across when you explain the shades of gray.

There is an excellent conversation from a 2004 Charlie Rose Show that has this book being talked about between Rose and his guest, who happened to be Barack Obama. In this interview, Obama does a much better job of talking about how the people are "bitter" about government... the gist of his argument is that people who have had labor jobs that are going away face an uncertain future, and that because of this uncertainty, and because the government is not giving them a plausible economic package, they are voting issues. The Democratic Party has a reputation for being condescending to gun owners and people of faith... a few things that these people do cling to in times of economic uncertainty (I'm from rural south, and I've seen it with the textile mills going out of business) because it is something that gives them something solid to stand on...TRADITION. Obama's argument is that if we (Dems) don't give these people hope for something better on the economic front, and we (Dems) don't seem to support the things that give these people some solace (guns, religion), then we will continue to lose votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by scbelle

In this interview, Obama does a much better job of talking about how the people are "bitter" about government... the gist of his argument is that people who have had labor jobs that are going away face an uncertain future, and that because of this uncertainty, and because the government is not giving them a plausible economic package, they are voting issues.

This I can buy. It makes sense. It is actually a good thing. If more people voted for government based on their economic needs instead of social issues then we would have a much better government that was keyed in on addressing matters that a government can reasonably manage.

The trouble is that Obama went a step further and pretty well stated that such people cling to guns and religion for solace.

Compounding the problem is that Obama has not presented himself and his positions in clear terms compared to the other candidates, and he has also run on some notion of hope and change for America- which should presumably include the hopes and dreams of these gun-toting Bible-beating rural folks he disparaged.

If the average voter had a clearer idea of what Obama is about, then it would be easier to put these comments in an appropriate context. The fact he has not provided such a context is in itself a big worry.

As it stands, one has to assume that he is a far left liberal who believes government is the answer. Not all liberals are far left, mind you. But Barack's comments speak to a very far left position that believes religion is inferior to government as a guiding influence in life, and also that the Second Amendment should be restricted- if not repealed.

Smart people are perfectly rational to assume the worst about what Obama said- especially since his comments very neatly fit into two key arguments for far left liberalism, i.e. the danger of religion and the necessity for gun control.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

This I can buy. It makes sense. It is actually a good thing. If more people voted for government based on their economic needs instead of social issues then we would have a much better government that was keyed in on addressing matters that a government can reasonably manage.

I agree with that, I think social issues should be left up to local governments maybe state level if there were enough state-wide controversy but it should stop at that level.

[skylark]

For once I'd just like to be able to have a President that tells me what he honestly thinks instead of whitewashing all the un-P.C. controversial stuff. We all have some opinions that are controversial and as soon as we start expecting to get a President who never offends us by something is the point that we end up with a mouthpiece-President that (a) doesn't have anything going on upstairs, or (b) baby-feeds us what we WANT to hear.

The bottom line is that I think there is some truth in what he said. I live in one of the states filled with negative backlash that he is talking about, and that is what I see as a cause of it all, in part. I don't think Obama is foolish enough to think it is the only cause -- it is simply one of them. I think if he could pick his words differently in hindsight he would have clarified the "religion" bit because I know from his other speeches and writings that he values religion a great deal and he did not mean it in a way to knock religion itself, but merely suggest that it is often manipulated for political gains.

He had an idea that itself is simply a reflection on one of our nation's problems. He probably could have worded it better, but a simple look into anything else he's said on the subject before or since the incident clarifies what he meant.

My prediction is that in 2 weeks this will have dinged him about as much as the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by skylark

For once I'd just like to be able to have a President that tells me what he honestly thinks instead of whitewashing all the un-P.C. controversial stuff. We all have some opinions that are controversial and as soon as we start expecting to get a President who never offends us by something is the point that we end up with a mouthpiece-President that (a) doesn't have anything going on upstairs, or (b) baby-feeds us what we WANT to hear.

The bottom line is that I think there is some truth in what he said. I live in one of the states filled with negative backlash that he is talking about, and that is what I see as a cause of it all, in part. I don't think Obama is foolish enough to think it is the only cause -- it is simply one of them. I think if he could pick his words differently in hindsight he would have clarified the "religion" bit because I know from his other speeches and writings that he values religion a great deal and he did not mean it in a way to knock religion itself, but merely suggest that it is often manipulated for political gains.

He had an idea that itself is simply a reflection on one of our nation's problems. He probably could have worded it better, but a simple look into anything else he's said on the subject before or since the incident clarifies what he meant.

My prediction is that in 2 weeks this will have dinged him about as much as the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco.

How much do you think the Jeremiah Wright thing "dinged" him? I think it might be worse than you do apparently.

[Drolefille]

I think it is a lot easier for a swing voter to assume that McCain will be more centrist on social issues than it is for Obama to be centrist on fiscal issues.

My problem with McCain isn't on social issues so much as it is foreign policy. (And I would classify myself as a swing voter generally even though I'm a supporter of Obama this cycle) He's never been a fan of the conservative Christian right that is pushing the social issues that I'm not a fan of, even if he's been sucking up royally recently. However, I cannot look favorably at a man who thinks that a "funny" answer to a foreign policy question is "bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb Iran" I'm sick of the saber rattling.

[DSTCHAOS]

What "he" said isn't brand new. This has been said for decades.

I agree with it.

People cling onto things that they know to be true and consistent. This applies to religion and guns for many, evidenced when you actually let people put their guards down and talk and listen to them. They also look for answers to their problems or someone to blame for their position, particularly when they see a group of people who isn't "like them." And they find people or things to attribute moral decline, crime, a loss of jobs/competition for the good jobs because of cheap labor to.

This is the age-old explanation for the -isms and inequality in this country. It isn't about bigotry just for the sake of bigotry. It's about economic competition and a perceived need to externalize struggles and find ways to position yourself against others. For instance, if you're economically downtrodden you will find other definitions of success, power, and prestige. This may lead you to place more emphasis on religion, guns, anti-immigration stances, anti-women's rights stances, anti-minority stances, or whatever position you feel answers your need to create an "other" at the time.

Nothing new...but perhaps it would've been best received if it had not targeted a group that is not used to being targeted.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Nothing new...but perhaps it would've been best received if it had not targeted a group that is not used to being targeted.

Poor rural people are never the targets of condescending social commentary? Really?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Poor rural people are never the targets of condescending social commentary? Really?

There was nothing condescending about his comments.

But, REALLY.

ETA: As I said before, his comments are nothing new. But the fact that they are receiving so much negative attention means there's a disconnect somewhere. The disconnect has to do with the people his comments are interpreted as being about---frame of reference provides the context.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

There was nothing condescending about his comments.

But, REALLY.

ETA: As I said before, his comments are nothing new. But the fact that they are receiving so much negative attention means there's a disconnect somewhere. The disconnect has to do with the people his comments are interpreted as being about---frame of reference provides the context.

You realize you haven't really said anything here, right?

ETA: oh, I guess you did say that his comments weren't condescending, which might be your opinion, but doesn't necessarily correspond with reality.