Swamy Says: August 2008

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

back during bittergate

With the revival of the "elitism" charge against Obama -- including by none less than Cokie Roberts, herself the daughter of a famous Congressman and product of exotic Louisiana and expensive DC private schools -- I decided to post my various posts on the topic at the time of "bittergate." But first a thought about Hawaii, where I lived for four years, two in Kailua where Obama is staying: the most striking thing about it for me is the heavy military presence. Obama stayed within spitting distance of huge marine base, and there are multiple other naval, army and air force bases on Oahu alone. With all those military personnel, could it really be that exotic?!

OK back to bittergate:

1. I sent the following as an email to Maureen Dowd, whom I normally love to read. The article is here.

Sigh. Et tu, Mauree? I kept waiting for a trace of the Dowd irony in your piece but to no avail. Well your argument is as silly as every other "my Irish Catholic and/or working class roots have just been spat upon" columnist, and my there are a lot of you! He was not talking about why people love guns or anything else in his list. He was talking about why people in small, economically devastated towns might be resistant to his campaign. And last I checked, whatever your -- or Joan Walsh's or Chris Matthews' -- roots you are no longer qualified to speak for those people. But the evidence is that they are bitter, and far less offended than their well-to-do cousins in the nation's journalistic elite who love to wear their populist origins in their sleeve. As for the drift of Kennedy Democrats to Reagan Republicanism, that began with the defeat of the populist Hubert Humphrey and reached its peak with the populist Mondale. Poor egghead Dukakis got the second highest share of the popular vote of any Democrat between 1964 and 1996, after Jimmy Carter.

2. The reference to Joan Walsh was for this in which she mostly defended him but still found it necessary to trot out her "Irish working class roots" against his purported elitism: "Barack Obama does have an affluent, educated, Ivy League sense of self-righteousness and entitlement that my Irish Catholic working-class side occasionally chafes at. So does Michelle Obama." To which I responded as follows:

the sound of one hand clapping
[Read the article: Obama and the white working class]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]

Speaking as an Obama supporter I would give one thumb up to both you and Obama. To Obama because as effective as Obama was in his response, it still begs the question of why he lumps all those issues together as things that need to be explained and, implicitly criticized. (The two that I thought were problematic were religion, given his frequent description of himself as a devout christian, and anti-trade sentiments, given his frequent reference to the evils of trade agreements). To you because of that unconvincing little riff about your working class background and the Obamas (and Obama supporters') elitist ones. Never mind Obama, whose background is well-known and not all that privileged. Michelle Obama is a working class girl who made good. And you, for all your working class origins, are one too. So let's drop the populist posturing, please.
Permalink Saturday, April 12, 2008 12:48 AM

3. The really inane piece of reporting on this on Salon, however, was this piece of faux populist posturing by Michael Lind, to which I responded as follows

#
#
populists and progressives
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]

This recycling of old cliches is disingenuously incomplete. First, let's be clear who the counterparts to the populists are. They are the "progressives" -- a term those who sneer at "goo-goo" types avoid because of its positive connotation -- heir to the Roosevelt/Wilson (hence bipartisan) efforts to reform everything from political machines to the corporate malfeasance. Second, let's be clear why the New Deal "populist" coalition broke down: it was the direct result of the civil rights movement and the attempts to give blacks a fair shake in the coalition which led to the defeat of the great populist Hubert Humphrey. The "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon was really a Wallace/Nixon Democrat phenomenon. Third let's be clear on what Obama was trying to do -- BRIDGE the existing schism by getting the progressives to be a little more understanding of the populists. Last person to do this? FDR. OK maybe Clinton, too. Fourth, let's be clear on the win/lose records of the two types -- Carter was a progressive; Mondale, the biggest Democratic loser in since WW II a populist. The article attempts to fudge this by conflating "populists" with "southerners" and "cultural conservatives." But the "southern strategy" has been a best since Gore, the southerner lost the south. Ironically, Dukakis actually got the highest share of the popular vote of any Democrat between 1976 and 1996, losing 53-47 and ran much closer in the once-Republican industrial Midwest showing the potential of winning these states which Clinton (with help from Perot) eventually did and every Democrat has done since (except Ohio). Finally, in the end, let's be clear on who loses the most when the white working class "populists" vote Republican on "cultural issues" because this that or the other progressive seemed somehow, inexplicably, more elitist than Bush. They, the white working class, do. Maybe it's time to start building a party without them. They are, after all, dwindling in numbers.
Permalink Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:50 AM