Unfortunately, many “progressives” simply can’t understand the nature of this decades-old problem. They can’t understand why it’s bad politics (and basically foolish) to ridicule people for being religious. They don’t see why it’s bad politics this week to build jokes around the word “gun-toting.” A few months ago, they didn’t understand why it was morally obnoxious (and vastly stupid) to accuse everyone in sight of being a slobbering racist. Sergio Bendixen, for example—so accused for answering a question he’d been asked about a delicate subject. They could tell that Bendixen was a big vile race man—and that others had conspired with him!These words came in response to the Bob Herbert's outrageous recent column. Herbert believes that working class Democrats in Pennsylvania (and, presumably, elsewhere) don't favor Obama because they are racists.
To all appearances, some men get into comedy so they can ridicule women from a stage. Similarly, some people seem to become progressives so they can forever parade about, telling the world about their moral superiority to all the unwashed rubes. For them, progressive politics is about name-calling. A movie is playing in their heads. In this movie, they and their friends are the very good people. Mommy and Daddy are not.
Personally, I believe that they favor Hillary because they think the Clintons have a record of defending working class interests. Herbert's approach -- "Vote for my candidate or I'll call you a bigot" -- seems to be the entire Obama game plan. This tactic won't work in the general. In fact, it will be seen as an insult.
When will progressives learn? Insulting people whose votes you need won't win elections.
6 comments:
Your right but it's so tempting to make fun of their religion because their religion is so stupid.
You're reading it out of context. Cannon and Hannity, same voice now.
Out of context?
No I'm not. First, Somersby quoted a large chunk of the original piece. Second, I have no problem linking to the actual Herbert column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It's a really stupid piece. Herbert goes on to say:
"Pennsylvanians themselves will tell you that racial attitudes in some parts of the state are, to be kind, less than enlightened. Gov. Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton’s most powerful advocate in the state, put it bluntly last February: “I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”"
The question that Herbert does not address is this: How many of those whites are voting in the Democratic primary?
By all means, read Herbert carefully. "Some" racist whites in Rendell's statement becomes a blanket condemnation of any white who will not vote for Obama.
You would never know that Philadelphia has a black mayor.
I have no idea what Hannity said, nor do I care. Frankly, you are the first to tell me that Hannity acknowledged Herbert's column.
Somersby's words do ring true:
"“There is no mystery here,” Herbert says, betraying the confidence of the elitist. (In his first sentence, he modestly acknowledges that he knows “the correct answer.”) And then he makes a sweeping (if imprecise) assessment of the souls many people; “a substantial number” of Pennsylvanians won’t vote for Obama because of his race, he says. Later, he leans down from the mountaintop, saying this: “No one has an obligation to vote for Mr. Obama, and it's certainly not racist to vote against him.” Gee, thanks! But wouldn’t you know it? Right at the start of his piece, he seems to say something quite different.
Are there people in Pennsylvania who will vote against Obama due to race? Presumably there are—although, in fact, there’s plenty of “mystery” about how “substantial” the “number” might actually be. But at least since the late 1960s, many progressives have behaved just as Herbert does here. It’s our first instinct! We start by attributing the worst possible motives and attributes to wide numbers of everyday people—people whom we’ve never met. What exactly does Herbert mean when he says “a substantial number” of Pennsylvanians won’t vote for Obama due to his race? There’s no way to know for sure—but his formulation seems to take everyone in. This formulation—the first thing he offers—quickly makes everyone suspect. “There is no mystery here,” he says—although, of course, there is."
So I just read Bob Herbert's column. I could be picky (which same "pickiness" led me to mostly stop reading newspapers and news magazines decades ago--its sophistic crap mostly.) about some of his wording and fall into agreement with you, but I see the overall message or intention of that column as trying to make some suggestions to Obama and his campaign, and as far as they go they seem fairly reasonable to me:
"If I were advising him, I would tell him to confront the matter head-on, meeting as often as possible with skeptical, and even hostile, working people in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Let the questions rip, and answer them honestly." And later: "The various groups, ethnic and otherwise, are not interested in being characterized [as "bitter." - "Angry" over economic disenfranchisement being, to Bob, a better choice of words.] They’re interested in being led."
A real problem I see with Bob, and Obama for that matter, is they give no indication about having even a start at understanding the economic meltdown we are in the midst of, or of causes or remedies. They are quibbling about a paint scheme while the house is on fire. They are concerned with appealing to or dealing with currents of popular opinion when popular opinion is misinformed nonsense.
Lincoln didn't do that, FDR didn't do that. They had principles and vision and they LED.
So Bob and Barack are both floundering around rather aimlessly and we can criticize them for their missteps... but to what end?
Bob's vision of Obama's best goal to lead toward is the election of Obama... who is presumably going to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again with "hope", and a "more compelling" economic message.
God help us.
Post a Comment