An interesting Son/Mother exchange on the Obama or Clinton question up at N + 1's website does a great job, I think, of highlighting both the arguments and the underlying dynamics in play.
« What It Don't Get I Can't Use | Main | Money for Nothing »
Mother Versus Son
04 Feb 2008 03:13 pm
Comments (49)
What Marilyn doesn't understand is that HRC is NOT like John Kerry or Al Gore or any other Democrat in recent memory (well, save for her husband). Yes, Barack will get swiftboated like those two did (maybe a little less, given the press's infatuation with him -- Gore especially had the disadvantage of being personally disliked by the press). But how long will this last? Three months? Seven if he unexpectedly pulls away?
Well, the Clintons were the subject of the right's frothing hatred for EIGHT PLUS years. Marilyn simply does not understand that to a vast swath of the country, they were bombarded with rabid anti-Clinton hatred for YEARS. I don't blame her -- as a New Yorker, she probably doesn't realize this. But when I hear my Sun Belt parents say that they will vote for any Democrat over any Republican this time around, UNLESS it is Hillary Clinton (in which case they will vote for any Republican over her), it makes me concern. When I hear my Rust Belt wife (and Obama campaign volunteer) say that she would be tempted to vote for Romney before Clinton, it really causes me concern.
The middle class in the middle part of the country spent the better part of the 90s hearing Hilary compared to the devil, almost every single day. It's hard to vote for somebody in those circumstances. And combine it with the motivation of those who think she actually IS the devil? Bad scene, man.
What she said, in essence, was that Hillary represented what she herself had endured as a woman in America all these years.
The problem with HRC is that many women who did not take the path that HRC took -- who instead became "traditional women" -- loath HRC with the same passion (and with the same sense of "sour grapes") that those who view HRC as an archetype for themselves love HRC.
*
I agree with you, Ned ... the mother's reasoning about "everybody is in the center and it's the elite which is polarized" actually smacks of high Broderism.
As a sixty-seven year old woman (who, by the way, went to Hillary Clinton's college) I must say I find Daniel's arguments far more persuasive than his mother's. Also, she gives the impression of not listening.
Dang, that sounds eerily like I assume it would sound if I were to do the same thing. I hear so much that it is "her time" and I hear this anger that reaches back to the 1960s. I wouldn't bring this up because I know that I would just be offend my mother like he did.
Am I the only one that thought both letters were written by the same person?
The kid's letter demonstrates the retard reasoning of people so weak minded that they cannot break away from the fifeteen years of conditioning they have recieved from the right wing smear machine.
I am a long time liberal and I would probable be more willing to have a McCain presidency than an Obama one. McCain is a straightforward guy. Obama I do not trust.
Besides, McCain and Obama have similiar views on universal health insurance: They both oppose it. With McCain in office we can build up the democratic party to offer a progressive alternative. With Obama in office we would lose the chance forever for univerasal coverage.
Also McCain I believe would be willing to protect social security whereas Obama would be more willing to destroy it.
The kid's letter demonstrates the retard reasoning of people so weak minded that they cannot break away from the fifeteen years of conditioning they have recieved from the right wing smear machine.
I am a long time liberal and I would probable be more willing to have a McCain presidency than an Obama one. McCain is a straightforward guy. Obama I do not trust.
Besides, McCain and Obama have similiar views on universal health insurance: They both oppose it. With McCain in office we can build up the democratic party to offer a progressive alternative. With Obama in office we would lose the chance forever for univerasal coverage.
Also McCain I believe would be willing to protect social security whereas Obama would be more willing to destroy it.
Thanks for the link, Matt.
I'm not too young to remember when the Clintons were the voice of hope and change from a long dark winter of Reagan and Bush I. Clinton was the first president I voted for, and I empathize with the young voters today who look at Obama and see what I saw when I looked at Bill Clinton and saw an opportunity to vote for something new.
I'm older and wiser now, but I'm still pulling the lever for a Clinton in this primary. That's largely because I grew up to be a technocrat (I'm an economist who works on fiscal policy issues) and I'm more impressed with the details of her policies than with Obama's. But also because I believe the Republican slime machine isn't going anywhere - Clinton's already come through that trial of fire - Obama hasn't even been tested yet.
I loved Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, and I hope to see him president someday. But right now I'm casting a vote for experience and competence rather than hope and change.
If this is right, and you and your peers have chosen to vote for Hillary Clinton out of a sense of emotional, historical, or psychological identification with her, then you and your peers are making your choice irresponsibly.
That (from n+1) is wrong. The notion that other people are doing something different is crazy.
I am a long time liberal and I would probable be more willing to have a McCain presidency than an Obama one. McCain is a straightforward guy. Obama I do not trust.
No one cares. If you could promise us that you'd feel actual physical pain if Obama got the nomination, you might switch a few fence-sitters to Obama. But short of that, no one cares.
In addition to what I mentioned above, let me just say that Hillary and Bill represent the preeminate brain trust in America today. We owe it to ourselves to elect them. Every right wing attack against them has been proven to be false. They're the most scrupulously honest, caring professionals I've seen in all my years of political observation.
In addition to what I mentioned above, let me just say that Hillary and Bill represent the preeminate brain trust in America today. We owe it to ourselves to elect them. Every right wing attack against them has been proven to be false. They're the most scrupulously honest, caring professionals I've seen in all my years of political observation.
Ken,
You sound like Paul Krugman in re: universal coverage. Why are people so convinced that going for it all now is going to be any better than the last time around?
There is a public desire for affordable health care now, not necessarily universal care, and I think people are conflating the two. An individual mandate does not ensure compliance. That is one of the problems in Mass. right now, if I am not mistaken. You have to have an enforcement tool and that more than likely will either come in the form of higher taxes or some sort of penalty. Yesterday, Clinton said (though I have not seen the context, so if someone can expound on this, please do) that she would consider garnishing wages to ensure compliance. How do you think that is going to go over?
I am with everyone on the idea that universal coverage would be the best thing (a single payer, that is). I just don't think it's going to happen.
This part of the son's letter -- paraphrasing the thoughts of his mother-in-law -- strikes me as inaccurate:
What she said, in essence, was that Hillary represented what she herself had endured as a woman in America all these years. As a teacher, she was told by her superiors that her tendency to push back against bureaucratic inertia, to think independently, was professionally unwise. She was told that she was a nuisance, a troublemaker. She had watched over the years, she said, as the same messages were leveled—cruelly, vilely—at Hillary, and this pained her.
As a native of Orange County, California, not to mention a political junkie, I've heard many "average American" criticisms of Senator Clinton and even more "political elite" criticisms, but I've never heard anyone say, "That damnable Hillary Clinton is always pushing back against bureaucratic inertia!"
Neither is "she thinks independently" a typical Hillary criticism (in fact, criticism that she is a strategic, triangulating, opportunistic and unprincipled pol seem incompatible with independent thinking).
Were these the criticisms leveled at Senator Clinton I'd certainly assume a sexist tinge, and perhaps my twentysomething friends mislead me into underestimating the sexism she faces as a female presidential candidate -- actually I'm pretty sure that is the case -- but "bureaucratic pushback" and "thinks independently" as reasons for Hillary hatred seem suspiciously like straw women to me.
Ken: Is it difficult for you to be such a consistant ass clown? Seriously, you're a freakin joke.
Ned, there is some jerk, perhaps you(?) who thinks it funny to use my name to write comments as follow up to what I originally wrote.
I will leave this site to him/her/you.
Ned, there is some jerk, perhaps you(?) who thinks it funny to use my name to write comments as follow up to what I originally wrote.
I will leave this site to him/her/you.
McCain is a straightforward guy. Obama I do not trust. - ken
What makes you think that?
Besides, McCain and Obama have similiar views on universal health insurance: They both oppose it. - also ken
What makes you think that? That HRC wants a mandate and Obama is not pushing for said mandate?
Does mandating something make it universal? We mandate people don't smoke dope, so nobody smokes dope? We mandate people buy auto insurance in order to drive ... so of course, all drivers have auto insurance.
OTOH, we pretty much do have universal education in this country -- because we mandate people buy "education insurance"? No ... because we have a (much in need of improvement to be sure) whole system of public schools people can attend without (technically) paying a dime.
Mandating people buy health insurance =/= universal health care (not insurance ... let's keep our eyes on the prize, folks).
Is the devil in the details? Yeah sure. But that's all the more reason that a candidate shouldn't do too much in revealing politically inconvenient details in a campaign which, after all, will change by the time the legislative sausage making machine is done with the bill anyway.
But, you say, candidates need to give detailed plans to tell us in what direction they will take our country? Yep. That's true ... they need to give "detailed plans"(TM). But let's not confuse "details"(TM) with actual details. For too long Dems. have either given empty rhetoric or actual details -- neither of which is appropriate for a campaign. We need to learn the art of giving "details"(TM). As an example of a masterwork of "details"(TM) I offer the "Contract with America".
I would have thought that, as a successful trial lawyer, Edwards would know that trick -- but it's obvious from their "lighting-rod" health-care proposals that he never fully translated his mad lawsuit winning skillz onto the campaign trail and she really hasn't learned from her first go around with health care reform during the WJ Clinton years. Obama seems short on details, but every so often he does seem to get the idea of how to provide "details"(TM) ... alas, he doesn't do so often enough, so he seems vacuous at times, but he's done a better job so far than either HRC or Edwards have.
*
Anyway, there would be a big difference between a Dem President (either HRC or Obama) and a GOP President: who gets nominated to Fed. judge-ships.
Ken says, "I am a long time liberal".
I don't believe you.
ken,
Assuming it was you at 3:44, I don't think you can be critical of "people so weak minded that they cannot break away from the fifeteen years of conditioning they have recieved from the right wing smear machine" while simultaneously regurgitating the pap about how "McCain is a straightforward guy."
But right now I'm casting a vote for experience and competence rather than hope and change.
That's your prerogative, of course, but I don't think Clinton has demonstrated her competence, at least not if "competence" includes good judgment on big questions. Experience and familiarity with the machinery of government, yes. Competence is at best an open question.
I strongly favor Obama in the primaries, but it seems to me that in this exchange the son puts forth a comparatively weak argument, why the mother seems to be more realistic.
There is no question that the right wing noise machine will go after Obama with the same viciousness that they went after the Clintons. And they will do so throught his term, (or terms ideally).
And newness is at best a mixed virtue. To think that newness by itself is a reason for favoring one candidate over another seems silly.
But what does seem to favor Obama is that when the Clintons came to Washington, the country has moved rather far to the right, and there was not a lot of chance at the time to move things significantly to the left. That is why Clinton had little choice but to declare the age of big government over.
Now, Bush has made such a hash of republican values that there does seem to be a legitimate chance to move things in the right direction. This was Obama's point in the comment about Reagan. The fact that he sees it does seem to be a reason to expect more from his administration than from hers.
But even there if one is expecting a revolution one is setting oneself up for disappointment.
Conor Friedersdorf:
As a native of Orange County, California, not to mention a political junkie, I've heard many "average American" criticisms of Senator Clinton and even more "political elite" criticisms, but I've never heard anyone say, "That damnable Hillary Clinton is always pushing back against bureaucratic inertia!"
It's not the text, but the subtext; what these women are essentially saying is that Hillary's considered a pushy bitch, just as they were when they dared step out of line. And they resent it, both on her behalf and their own.
I wish my mom was around so I could hear her perspective, because she was less than a year younger than HRC and got smacked down much harder, being far less privileged to begin with. But Mom wasn't that concerned with operations per se-- including household management, much to others' consternation-- so I can't really imagine that she'd be that infatuated with someone who promises to manage the country instead of leading it. I guess it was all those damned books she read instead of cleaning.
Anyway, it seems to be a mindset that melds a history of insults & grievances with the near obsession with detail work that has long been the province of women, that seems to motivate a fair number of HRC supporters IME.
"McCain is a straightforward guy. Obama I do not trust. - ken"
Now that I don't understand. The SF Chronicle ran a feature where the candidates answered questions emailed in by readers. McCain's every response was pure fluff. In 1000 words he didn't offer one specific, one policy, one thing other than soundbites and propaganda. I used to think I could vote for him but it was so disgusting that little experiment of mine ended before it began. McCain is a charlatan politician of the worst ilk, it turns out. All bluster and BS. Sad.
Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, mixed political fluff with policy specifics about equally. And their positions were very similar, perhaps slightly different in the small details. Obama wants to scrap No Child Left Behind, Clinton wants to reform it if possible, scrap it if not.
Anyway, I'm an Obama supporter and that n+1 article pissed me off. That kid should be smacked for being so self-absorbed. Admonishing his mother, for the sake of his daughter, not to consider sexism when deciding whom to vote for? Really? What emotional manipulation. What intellectual dishonesty. What a maroon, as Bugs Bunny would say. I'm no fan of the world of slimeball politics the Clinton's rule like the most annoying kids on the playground, but if you take five minutes and educate yourself, if you go beyond soundbites and slogans, if you get down to the facts of what she's proposing, HRC would make a damn fine president. I can understand not voting for HRC for a number of reasons, but brushing off her appeal as an icon against the world's longest standing bigotry is tiny-brained. Further, anyone who claims to be even moderately intellectual should, in my opinion, take the hatred by Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilley, etc, as a plus.
So Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are functionally equivalent values on diametric sides of the spectrum? That kid is an uninformed idiot... I'm sure he enjoyed the "yes we can" video, though.
ken ken,, are are you you so so computer computer illiterate illiterate that that you you cannot cannot help help posting posting your your inane inane thoughts thoughts twice twice?? whether whether due due to to ignorance ignorance or or by by design design it's it's extremely extremely annoying annoying. please please desist desist.
thanks thanks
Now, Bush has made such a hash of republican values that there does seem to be a legitimate chance to move things in the right direction. This was Obama's point in the comment about Reagan. The fact that he sees it does seem to be a reason to expect more from his administration than from hers.
The problem with this was articulated well by Paul Rosenberg (at Open Left) in response to George Lakoff's support of Obama. Lakoff had said that Obama would make bold moves, rather than take the incrementalist approach found with Clinton. But as Rosenberg points, that's completely incorrect. He *is* taking the step-by-step approach and has not advanced any bold ideas or proposed any sweeping changes. His agenda appears to involve getting a ton of grassroots support for a platform that differs little from Clinton's, and only a little more from Kerry's.
Thanks, Israel. Do you represent the Zionist 'Obama loves Farrakhan' club?
Regarding the two letters (I speak as a professor of rhetoric), the son's has various devices of empty elation, and is technically quite similar to Bush's second inaugural (one example of many: "What’s right is to step back and choose to vote not for ourselves but – it’s a cliché, but it is newly poignant for me, newly resonant – for our children." Yes, it is a cliche, and saying that it is doesn't redeem it! The mother's letter addresses a person's immediate concern and actual events, always a truer style.)
I think these letters are mostly besides the point. I speak as a patriot who is deeply pessimistic, because my native country America is a weak and fearful and internally incoherent society (which is why we need so many guns). Since the beginning of the Cold War, we have persistently made the fearful, easy choice, from consumerism to Nixon and Reagan and Newt Gingrich and Bush's War on Terror Everywhere. When these pests exacerbate our tensions, as they always do, we turn to the easiest choice in saviors: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now, I fear, Obama. We always destroy the new saviors rather quickly, because at bottom, our incoherence makes us more comfortable with settling back into our strange combination of terror and moral sleep.
For this reason, I would choose Hillary, because with her, we have a chance to do the most to bring our society's most potent brew of irrational hatreds and fears and our essential immaturity out into the open: we would have to get up each morning and confront our own ugliness (and beauty, where it exists, as it certainly does). Our contradictions would be unavoidable; we would not be able to cease from mental fight, as Blake puts it, and why *should* we be able to? Don't we owe that to the rest of the world that we've been crashing into and burning and occupying lo these many years? Don't we owe that to the dead in this war, both ours and the Iraqis'? What right do we have to ask for "an end to divisiveness"--we who have spent this war in the shopping mall or on a cloistered campus?
We haven't earned that right, and asking for it strikes me as just another instance of our true genius for always finding the nearest way towards absolving ourselves of our responsibilities as citizens and human beings--and also, by now, of an enormous blood debt to many non-Americans--not just those we have bombed, as many as those are, but to the much greater numbers in the third world that we have exploited and sided against time and again.
I think Obama knows all this, and also believes that we can't face it; he sincerely wants to help us the way a parent wants to help an unstable child. I understand that, and he might be right, but even if that works short term, it won't allow us to cure our disease. Hillary forces us to cure ourselves or perish (I don't know if she does that consciously, though by now she must have a pretty good idea; this is just what and who she is, her scapegoat persona invites us in this way); she asks us to grow up instead. I want to make that choice, even if we try and fail. If we fail, there will be no more America as we've known it, no more superpower: we'll decline into a new Britain. Can we honestly say that that would be a bad thing for the world in the coming century?
Hillary for President, and forward into a new era of poetry and civil war. Let's find out who we really are.
Yeah, the son completley lodt me on his condementation of MoveOn's ad etc etc. It's High Broderism. The Mom's letter is..well....not as emotionally powerful, in a sense, but a little less irritating.
And I say this as someone who's likely going to vote Obama come the primayr and *did* like that Yes We Can video.
There is no question that the right wing noise machine will go after Obama with the same viciousness that they went after the Clintons.
I don't see this as a given at all. A number of staunch conservatives -- e.g. NRO's Lowry and Dreher, even Hinderaker -- have already spoken of Obama in much more favorable terms. Not that they'd vote for him, but the absence of bitterness and rancor is notable.
Of course, that could change. But there is at least a question there, rather than no question.
Kevin Egan: What a load of crap. Hopefully you didn't take time out from anything important to craft that treatise.
They're the most scrupulously honest, caring professionals I've seen in all my years of political observation.
Thank you for the laugh, ken. You should get together with Linda here who believes "Romney is not a politician so he doesn't have the slick delivery others do".
I'm sure Daniel's mom appreciates the reminder that she's in "late middle age."
Second, while I am an Obama supporter (and a 34-year-old with a 60-year-old mom), and for basically the same reasons as the n+1 kid, I have to say he comes off as an officious little shit lecturing his mom like that. "Hillary unites the Republicans against her" is a good point, but it does not follow that it's some kind of great moral imperative for us to pre-emptively vote against her so the Republicans don't.
His mom also makes two very good points: (1) The political talking class is more divided than the general public, and (2) It's not like Rush Limbaugh is going to retire if Obama is the candidate instead of Hillary.
n+1's writing staff seems to be composed of a lot of juvenile, pretentious nitwits writing on a college-freshman level.
I think Kevin Egan did a great job of pointing out the empty elation of the pro-Obama letter, and demonstrated the technique with some thoroughly empty rhetoric of his own.
"Regarding the two letters (I speak as a professor of rhetoric), the son's has various devices of empty elation, and is technically quite similar to Bush's second inaugural (one example of many: "What’s right is to step back and choose to vote not for ourselves but – it’s a cliché, but it is newly poignant for me, newly resonant – for our children." Yes, it is a cliche, and saying that it is doesn't redeem it! The mother's letter addresses a person's immediate concern and actual events, always a truer style.)"
if Kevin Eagan is actually a professor of rhetoric, and actually believes that one kind of "style" can be "always...truer" than another....but wait! we can test his theory:
statement #1:
If Kevin Eagan actually believes this, I fear for our children!
statement #2:
If Kevin Eagan actually believes this, I hope my kid never ends up in his class.
Both seem true to me; ymmv, though.....
Old baby boomers make me laugh! They've had 16 years in power and they'll get more. Only next time it will be a 70-something right winger, able to usher that generation through its retirement and finally, out of our political conversation.
Someone remind me, what has their generation done for anyone or anything but themselves?
But there is another facet of your argument: that Hillary is a divisive politician. You name people like Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, and state that Hillary is hated by the majority of those on the right, and that this vitriol will never cease if she is elected.
I’ve seen research that suggests that it is the political elite – the pundits, the media, and elected officials – that is divided, and not the country; that the general public as a whole is more centrist than "color-coded in red and blue"; and that the perception of a large split is the result of polarized choices being available to us in elections. If that is the case, then Hillary Clinton cannot exacerbate a problem that doesn't really exist.
The mom has a point - the American public isn't really as divided as the media or Congress would suggest. The thing is, this is just what Obama has been saying, and has been fighting against. He's not trying to re-unite America with itself, he's trying to stop the partisan bitching in Washington and bring politicians together to get real work done through a mandate from the people.
He's the only candidate that will allow the American people to SHOW how they are not divided, because he's the only one attempting to transcend partisanship.
I seem to have riled some people, though so far without much substantive response to what I argued. Yes, it was a broad argument: it's the season.
To Morgan: it would help if you said where I'm wrong (if "wrong" is what you mean by "crap").
To Josh: I alluded to well-known situations, but if the allusions weren't explicit enough, I could adduce some much-discussed instances of really dangerous and hysterical expressions of our national character in our foreign policy: just for starters, how about
1) one hundred years of the U.S. in Central America and the Caribbean
2) the size of our military budget compared to the military budgets of the rest of the world
3) our non-adherence to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Those instances lead, I think, to conclusions like mine (which aren't particularly original among those on the left, except I'm applying them to the Obama-Clinton race, which is the original topic of this column).
To Metaleptic (or Transumptive, if you prefer! Nice handle...): most professors of rhetoric currently (perhaps including yourself?) are philosophical nominalists; a few (including myself) are philosophical realists. Hence, believing that natural events and persons are real and offer an index to our utterances (however difficult that be to specify accurately, except at the end of an infinite future of inquiry), I believe that I can justify, at least provisionally, the statement that making reference to and hinging arguments upon the doings of natural persons and events before making reference to and hinging arguments upon an infinite regress of subtexts (or memes, or cliches) will always (until we find out otherwise) provide a truer style.
Also, speaking as a parent, I find it can be valuable for my kids to disagree and debate with their teachers, and would certainly welcome your children in my class...however, ymmv...
With respect to all--Kevin
The son's letter was pretentious, but what do you expect? He's a journalist.
As to the Mom, she doesn't get it. It is true that, in general, America isn't as divided as the pundits. But in the specific case of the Clinton's, they are. The typical Republican on the street hates her. The reasons for that are complex, but that is just a fact. You can blame the right-wing noise machine, if you want to, but that isn't the whole of it. The Clinton's carry a huge amount of 1960's baggage. The right-wing attacks work, BECAUSE of that baggage. It was the same with John Kerry. All it took to get my dad frothing at the mouth about the evils of John Kerry was to flash that picture of him sitting a few rows back from Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally. To my mom, Hillary is the living embodiment of the feminist women who condemned stay-at-home moms, like her. The occasional snide comment from Hillary reinforced her view. She absolutely hates her. My parents reflexively distrust anything the Clinton's do and anyone they work with, and they are certainly not alone in that attitude. When a big chunk of the PUBLIC, not just the pundits, has that attitude, how are you supposed to get anything done? It's impossible!
Now take Obama... neither of my parents dislike the guy. He isn't carrying around those highly emotional 60's buttons. He doesn't talk ideology (which boomers completely fixate on), he talks about specific issues and the need to solve specific problems in a way that is respectful to the other side. When the right-wing noise machine starts pummeling him, they are just going to look mean. Kerry and Clinton handed them a huge pile of generational ammunition, but with Obama, they don't have a whole lot to work with. They can disagree on issues, and ramp up the rhetoric there, but that's it!
What Adam V. said. I'm for Obama, but as a 30something with a 60something mother I hope would smack me if I were that condescending to her. And, it's not like only women of "late middle age" have experienced sexism or would feel that draw.
There's another part of the mother's response that I find particularly weak. That is the notion that we should vote for Hillary because the Republicans and the media were so mean to her in the '90s that there isn't anything new that can be used against her -- that she is "tested." Oh really? She's had her name on the ballot in exactly 2 elections and they were in New York, one of the most liberal states in the country. It seems quite a stretch to me to assume that she's faced the best the Republicans can throw at her. Her tested-ness is about as thin as her 35 years of experience.
"It's her time"? I could buy into that, were it not more or less the same rationale as Bob Dole's campaign, and - I fear - about as successful.
Two years ago, HRC was the logical Democratic candidate for me. Then came that first Obama piece in the New Yorker, and it wasn't so clear cut anymore.
"McCain is a straightforward guy. Obama I do not trust."
Now that was funny. I don't trust Obama either - either to not lie or to know what he's doing in foreign policy.
But McCain is a fucking senile old military lunatic. Putting him in office is a guarantee of war and a devastated economy forever (or until he's out of office, anyway - which would be in four years - but the wars would probably go on for more years). Maybe not as insane as Giuliani would have been, but definitely worse than even Clinton.
We're going to get more wars with any of these three clowns - but with McCain, they'll be worse and sooner.
What I (20s) love about my family is that my Mom and Dad (boomer and pre-boomer respectively) have never fed me full of that bullshit this Mother was talking about. My Mom would smack me upside the head if she heard me talking about how the country was not divided. It's pretty fucking divided (sorry about the swearing, Mum!), if especially you look at the views of the individual congressional districts, rather than even the states.
Actually, my personal theory, which would have been the workings of my thesis had I decided to double up my Econ major with PoliSci rather than History, is that Americans like the Mother in question equate the views of their own community with the views of the country. So, this Mother is probably right that people are generally in agreement,this is to say, they have sensible "centrist", "moderate", positions - in her area. In fact, centrist and moderate in American politics seem to be bandied about as labels for the things *we* like, while whatever *they* like is radical.
So I wouldn't say she's guilty of High Broderism. I'd say she's not familiar with the wide differences (btw, in a nod to our rhetoric professor above, "cultural incoherency" is probably the best summation of our problem I've heard), or better yet, gaping chasms that exist across our country's constituent communities, and so extrapolates her own experience onto the rest of the country. Unfortunately, you can't really use inductive reasoning like that.
PS: The son is an utter dipshit. Anyone who condescends to my mother like that is going to get brutally beaten by her.
Postscript - or maybe, it would be better to say that High Broderism probably evolved from this sort of provincialism I'm suggesting in the case of the mother. A faulty proof by induction, if you will.
But also because I believe the Republican slime machine isn't going anywhere - Clinton's already come through that trial of fire - Obama hasn't even been tested yet. - Matilde
It occured to me overnight, OTOH, the Republican slime machine can only do so much anyway. Part of the problem is that the media has it in for Clinton and hence has been very dutiful about repeating GOP smears against Clinton and even manages to use different language when talking about Clinton than Obama (a Clinton higher-up "snuck into" an Edwards event while an Obama higher-up just "happened to be there").
Remember of course, that many people still believe the media to be liberal, which means many will take media criticism against a "liberal" to be valid simply because "why would the liberal media criticise a fellow liberal unless that fellow liberal really were bad for the country?" ... so not only does the media repeating GOP smears give those smears a wider audience, but it also gives them an objective ("even liberals believe HRC is teh evil") imprimateur.
So far (vide supra for an example), the media does not have the same animus against Obama that they do against Clinton. Of course, that the media has a crush on Obama won't play well in some quarters (the "liberal" media having a crush on a GOoPer like McCain means "McCain must really be independent and bipartisan" while the media's crush on Obama tars Obama as the same sort of wanker that fills the MSM, which wankery is wrongly identified by many as the face of liberalism), the media might later react toward Obama as a jilted lover and anyway, the GOP machine has been able to capitalize on racism before (did the media really help the GOP with their smear campaign against Harold Ford?): indeed, it's part and parcel of the Southern Strategy in which the media are portrayed as effete liberals.
But still, Clinton faces not only a known smear machine but also a known antipathy in the media who will be all too eager to repeat anti-Clinton smears. With Obama, there is at least a reasonable chance that the known smear machine won't have their smears repeated by the media, so hence there will be less traction.
Normally, I'd say play it safe and stick with the "known knowns" rather than the "known unknowns" ... but the Dem. party has a strong track record of not even being able to deflect obvious and predictable smears from the GOP ... so maybe it's better to at least go for having a chance that, even if the smear machine is still there, the smears won't get picked up and tossed around by the media.
I don't know which of these two is worse. Marilyn's kidding herself if she thinks that there aren't real divisions in the country. (Greg, I think you're spot-on about where this comes from).
But exactly how does Daniel think that Obama gets us around or past that? Hell, how does Obama think he's going to do that?
"Yet I am among those who embrace Obama’s ability to transcend the divisions that plague us." Yikes.
Comments closed February 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The Mother's letter and reasoning are lame. Typical Hillary supporter and Boomer politico.
Posted by Ned | February 4, 2008 3:23 PM