Karl Rove probably danced when he read that because it's damaging on so many levels. Obama managed to distill everything that working class white swing voters dislike about the Democrats into a sentence. Obama was already failing to attract similar voters; this makes that job exponentially more difficult.
Let me start by saying that the word "bitter" is not troubling; I think it may be an accurate, if condescending, description of people's feelings. The main problem is the suggestion that religious belief is not a sincere expression of faith but something "clung" to by the beleaguered plebs to deal with their economic misfortune. That comes dangerously close to some Marxist ideas about society. The central thesis here, that religion and values are a stand-in for economic concerns, is the problem, not the phrasing. Obama's subsequent statements, including his greeting to Pope Benedict XVI that said the pontiff's visit was especially relevant because of high inflation, suggest that he doesn't get that the problem is the idea and not the rhetoric.
One could point to the implicit and astounding denigration of gun rights, his statements on racism, xenophobia and protectionism, the mind-boggling juxtaposition of those sentiments with God and guns - which he has yet to realize is damaging - or the patronizing belief that everyone would think just like him if they had good jobs as equally harmful in their own ways. The main issue, however, is how this gaffe reinforces the Republican message. The GOP has accused Democrats of being arrogant liberals out of touch with the "silent majority" in every election since 1968, and it has worked in seven of 10 contests. This comment perfectly fits that story. The underlying fundamentals, which overwhelmingly favor the Democrats, will not matter if the narrative pits a young, condescending, big-city, liberal, Ivy League professor against a good old-fashioned centrist and American hero. The first law of politics is "perception uber alles," and the potential storyline above is where we are now heading.
The full-spectrum idiocy of this is so overwhelming that I initially wondered how someone as intelligent as Obama could have said it. But intelligence probably contributed both to the gaffe and his defenses of it, such as "I said something everybody knows is true." Running as the smartest guy in the room makes you more arrogant. You begin to think that you know exactly what makes people tick, but your confident assertions sometimes run up against the stubborn fact that people have their own ideas and generally don't like it when "liberal elites" act like they know best. A former teacher should realize that no one likes to be lectured at.
Another problem is that if you're convinced that you're smarter than your opponents, you're less likely to realize when their critiques are justified. Your response to attacks is going to be belligerent when a conciliatory tone is appropriate. Making intelligence a key selling point also reduces your margin of error. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and President Bush usually escape from mistakes unscathed because they don't make perfect the enemy of good. If expectations are raised, the penalty for boneheaded mistakes is higher.
McCain was already going to be a tough opponent. He is strong where Obama is very weak; among Hispanics and Reagan Democrats. Obama's coalition of the young, the intelligentsia and blacks is George McGovern's from 1972. After that election, a writer for The New Yorker is said to have exclaimed, "How did that happen? No one I know voted for Nixon!" Are we headed for a repeat of that epic defeat? Considering that McCain leads Obama convincingly in Florida and Ohio and is competitive or ahead in states that Democrats must win like New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, that question should deeply concern Democrats.
Barry Caro is a history major from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
