Obama's Elitism Problem

The big challenge facing Barack Obama is whether or not ordinary people can relate to him. After all, he's a big-time elitist. He thinks that it's better, all things considered, to speak two languages rather than one. Meanwhile, John McCain continues to flaunt his regular guy attributes, showing off his $520 Salvatore Ferragamo Pregiato Moccasins in a variety of settings in much the same spirit that the legendary straight talker once traveled, like a man of the people, in the First Class car on the Acela to Philadelphia.

This comes to me via Chris Hayes who claims to be too high-minded to mock Mr. Fancyshoes. I, however, received a knowing nod of approval from Obama directed at my T-MAC 6s at YearlyKos 2007 so I owe him loyalty in all footwear-related matters.

Comments

I feared for Obama's electoral chances when I heard him pronouncing "Pakistan" correctly.

Posted by Medium Dave | July 30, 2008 11:31 AM

Wait. You wear the shoes of a guy who has never gotten out of the first round?

Why not go all the way and wear Starburys?

Posted by Al | July 30, 2008 11:33 AM

From the Zappos link:

The T-MAC 6 features a five-pod Ground Control® System that will give you the ability to score at will.

Does it work?

Posted by live | July 30, 2008 11:33 AM

That's nothing, you should see my credit card bill.

Posted by The Other McMeghan | July 30, 2008 11:39 AM

So long as McCain's maverick brand survives, no amount of fancy shoes worn in private high-roller rooms will matter. (Like Bush, the guy you'd want to have a beer with even though he doesn't drink beer nor socialize with the likes of you.) Let the maverick/man of the people thing start slipping, and suddenly all of these factoids will appear deeply important.

Posted by Deborah | July 30, 2008 11:44 AM

Well, I have to say, McCain has nice shoes!

You, MattY, really have to stop dressing as though you're still in the 7th grade.

Really, though, who are we trying to attract by mocking McCain's shoes? All the people who resent the idea of having nice shoes are already firmly on the Republican side. Those who don't resent the idea believe that McCain is allowed, by dint of his birth, to wear them. As Kathleen Parker said, McCain has "blood equity" in this nation. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have the right to go walking around acting like he knows how to run the country. At least, not until all white-americans have a chance to do it first. Then maybe he'll get his turn. His descendants might even be allowed to wear expensive shoes.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 11:47 AM

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with these posts?

Demonstrate that people finding McCain more accessible than Obama is irrational? Well, duh. But I don't think people are going to smack themselves on the forehead and say, "Daggum, McCain has shoes that are worth more than my car! I hate him!"

You can send out an elitist vibe wearing flip-flops. This is reptilian-brain level stuff. The idea that you are going to overcome it by saying, "Look - McCain wears fancy shoes!" is absurd.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 30, 2008 11:48 AM

I gotta go with the Salvatore Ferragamo kicks on this one.

Anyway, the "fancy shoes" angle is just as dumb as the "fancy haircut" angle.

To McCain's credit, he seems to wear them all the time. It's not like he's got 200 pairs of shoes (well, maybe he does between his 9 houses).

Posted by socctty | July 30, 2008 11:51 AM

Sorry, Matt, but I gotta' side with Tyro on this one. Those shoes you bought are really f***in' ugly and, like Crocs, look pretty silly on a grown man.

Posted by LFC | July 30, 2008 11:52 AM

He doesn't go to Europe, he has no "experience" and is a dummy. He goes to Europe, and now he's an "elitist" who thinks he has "already won the election." Aaargh!!!

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 30, 2008 11:57 AM

My reaction to this is, "damn, those are some nice shoes" (McCain's, not Matt's). If I had a pair of shoes that sweet, I'd probably wear them all the time, too. And, if I were as rich as John McCain, I'd probably have a pair of $500 shoes. It's not nearly as ridiculous as a $400 haircut -- great shoes really are better than cheap shoes. If you're talking about a man's haircut, a $40 cut is better than a $15 cut, but I can't imagine what spending more than $40 would do.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2008 11:58 AM

As for why Obama's comments about language matter more than McCain's shoes...

McCain's shoes are not a normative statement about you. McCain happens to be able to afford the shoes, finds them comfortable and/or attractive, and thus wears them. He is not telling you that you ought to be wearing those shoes.

Not so for Obama's statement about language. There is an implicit message that if you don't speak more than one language, then you are deficient and poorly equipped for the modern economy. And if you think it's more important for kids to learn math and science than Spanish, then you are a closed-minded bigot who doesn't know what's going on in the world.

Now, that reaction to Obama's call for students to learn multiple language is very uncharitable, and has little connection to what Obama was trying to say. But it's out there. And it won't go away by pointing to John McCain's shoes.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 30, 2008 12:00 PM

"like Crocs, look pretty silly on a grown man."

My god, have grown men been wearing crocs?
Say it ain't so...

Posted by hlem | July 30, 2008 12:00 PM

If a guy can get conned into paying 520$ for a pair of shoes, how can he be trusted with the economy?

Posted by Sirkowski | July 30, 2008 12:01 PM

And John Kerry looked French!!!

Posted by El Cid | July 30, 2008 12:03 PM

Now, in the sense that McCain can get himself into trouble with these shoes, it's incumbent on a wealthy candidate to spend his money in a way in which the majority of people would spend their money if they were rich.

Thus: owning a custom, luxury-optioned F-150 is ok. Owning and wearing a Prada suit is not.

Honestly, I don't really know what kind of shoes that middle class people would buy if money were no object. I suspect that for most americans, the idea of spending more than $100 on a pair of shoes is simply not on the radar.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 12:07 PM

Um, don't you people get it?

Having a lot of money to spend by marrying an heiress (although she made you sign a pre-nup, so really you are spending her money)? Not elite.

Becoming modestly wealthy by writing best-selling books? Elite.

Incidentally, I don't really disagree--McCain may have a lot of money to spend, but there is little about him that is elite.

Posted by DTM | July 30, 2008 12:14 PM

My reaction to this is, "damn, those are some nice shoes" (McCain's, not Matt's). If I had a pair of shoes that sweet, I'd probably wear them all the time, too. And, if I were as rich as John McCain, I'd probably have a pair of $500 shoes. It's not nearly as ridiculous as a $400 haircut -- great shoes really are better than cheap shoes. If you're talking about a man's haircut, a $40 cut is better than a $15 cut, but I can't imagine what spending more than $40 would do.

Can we give this a rest already? We saw a $400 bill for services rendered. Multiple haircuts may have been performed. Also, travel may have been involved. A $40 haircut can become a $400 haircut pretty quickly when you move to LA and require your hairstylist to travel an hour both ways through traffic at a moment's notice. And let's not pretend that the demands of a modern campaign don't occasionally require this kind of accommodation. If his regular home town haircut was $400, that would be a different story. But campaigns blow a lot of money on random stuff all the time. Hillary's campaign was actually really bad about that, but it has more to do with being sloppy than anything else.

Posted by mpowell | July 30, 2008 12:15 PM

McCain may have a lot of money to spend, but there is little about him that is elite.

In part, I think this is why he will lose. Bush will try to sabotage his campaign because he want to remind McCain that Bush represents those who are in charge and McCain represents "the help."

Bush favors custom made Italian dress shoes, rather than the mass-market Ferragamo variety.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 12:17 PM

mpowell,

The only explanation that is at all excuplatory for me, in terms of wanting someone to be the steward of my tax money, is that the $400 paid for multiple haircuts.

All the others reflect either astonishing self-importance, poor planning, or looseness with money that has been entrusted to him.

Probably not disqualifying, but not something to be proud of either.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 30, 2008 12:21 PM

American voters don't care if candidates come from elite backgrounds (which McCain, as the son and grandson of Admirals, does) or middle class backgrounds (as Obama, the son of an academic and grandson of white collar workers does). What they care about is whether or not the candidate, whatever his background, can and does relate to THEIR circumstances with respect. Going to Harvard doesn't get you labeled an elitist. Making broad, insulting assumptions about, and expressing stereotyped, ill-informed, class-prejudiced notions about people who didn't go to Harvard, working people, etc. does. And that applies equally to the politician who when to Harvard, Kent State or Liberty Bible College.

Making fun of McCain's fancy shoes won't help dispel the notion that Obama is an elitist. Wearing less fancy shoes than McCain won't dispel the notion that Obama is an elitist. Expressing, from time to time, broad, ill-informed, knee-jerk upper, academic and "creative" class prejudices about "average" and working class Americans will get any politician labeled an elitist.

McCain has been very smart in dealing with the class issue -- in speeches to working class audiences he acknowledges that his background is more elite than their own. And, while doing so, he expresses his respect for who they are, the values they hold, how hard they work and how important their contribution is to the country.

Obama, on the other hand, has tried to answer charges that he is elitist by pretending to a less fortunate background than he actually experienced ("single mom," "food stamps" etc. -- as opposed to the reality of a well educated father, mother, step-father, and grandmother (a middle class bank VP who attended Berkeley)and his elite private school education.). He fails to recognize that the elitist charge doesn't arise from voters' disdain for his advantages and won't be dispelled by identification with any perceived lack of them (you don't have to come from an elite background to be a snob -- and, in fact, some of the worst snobs are people trying to compensate for their own humble backgrounds), but rather, they arise from voters perception of his disdain or disrespect for them -- their values, their accomplishments, their lifestyle choices, etc.

When Obama makes statements about "typical" Americans, based on stereotyped notions of one kind or another -- class, gender, age, region -- and, as he did most famously, dismisses them broadly, based on things like class and place, as "bitter," etc., he is reflecting the "common wisdom" and unchalleged assumptions of HIS class, a class -- the middle class to very affluent "meritocracy." A class that, as a class, increasingly has little direct knowledge of or familiarity with the white working class (or the poor either). (Obama, for instance, never attended public school in the US. He never sat in a classroom with, or had to compete with, as an equal, children of the white working class. And it is quite likely that he hasn't had much, if any, egalitarian contact or acquaintance with such people as an adult. This lack in his experience often shows in subtle ways -- and is the real cause of his perception as an elitist.)

Posted by esmense | July 30, 2008 12:27 PM

Matt, is that true? Obama approved of your suit-with-adidas look?

If that's true I'm giving him a $100 right now.

Posted by Chris M | July 30, 2008 12:28 PM

Not to be elitist or anything, but more people should stick up for quality clothing. I mean, I'm not wealthy enough to be dropping $500 on shoes left and right, but there's a case to be made that expensive good shoes are preferable to glued together mass market shoes (whether Aldo, department store items, or low quality, high markup casual shoes). What cheap clothing has gotten the middle class is often merely an excuse to buy more clothes with an expectation of disposability. Quantity wins out over quality. Lost in the shift is a tradition of craftsmanship and clothing that's actually flattering.

Mind you, Ferragamo may have a high markup premium compared to quality... I don't know.

Posted by Chris C | July 30, 2008 12:31 PM

If I were rich, I'd still wear my K-Mart lace-less sneakers, because they are the comfiest shoes ever made.

Posted by godoggo | July 30, 2008 12:33 PM

Al Al Al Al Al Al,

"esmense" just gave you a lesson in crafting well written intelligent arguement. It would behoove you to take notes and reflect on your recent drivel.

Posted by Take Notes Al | July 30, 2008 12:34 PM

McCain is supposed to be elite. He's white.

Posted by Eh? | July 30, 2008 12:37 PM

The only reason the Edwards thing was even a story is because he paid for it with campaign money. That's also the only way you can really turn it into something damning: if he's careless with other people's money when it comes to campaigning, will he have the same attitude about taxpayer money?

I'm not sure I buy it, but like I said, it's the only possible interpretation that leads to anything substantive.

Not that it has to be substantive to be a story. Gossip like how much Edwards paid for a haircut is still worth knowing, and I'm glad the media tells us these things. The key is keeping it in perspective and reporting it with the proper tone, a tone reserved for gossip and not serious news.

If I were really rich, I'd wear flip-flops all the time. But then, I wouldn't run for president.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2008 12:43 PM

esmense,

The elitism charges against Obama are arising from the fact his political opponents are throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at him, and this is a standard attack line. "Voter perception" has nothing to do with it.

Indeed, if you look at relevant polls, Obama actually trounces McCain on questions such as "Most likeable" or "Best understands the concerns of people like myself". So this isn't coming from the voters--just the opposite, it is his opponents trying to diminish his existing advantage among voters with respect to these issues.

Posted by DTM | July 30, 2008 12:44 PM

If a guy can get conned into paying 520$ for a pair of shoes, how can he be trusted with the economy?

If I had $520 for a pair of shoes, I'd get them hand-lasted by a craftsman. Not fucking off-the-shelf moccasins that probably carry a 500% markup.

esmense makes some interesting points, though I think Obama's contending with both the inverted snobbery that defines certain aspects of white working class America -- if you don't think that's present in the whole 'Blue Collar Comedy' thing, well, you might be a redneck -- and the elite white media's faux-blue-collar schtick.

So: is Obama Nick Carraway, or is he Jay Gatsby?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 30, 2008 12:45 PM

McCain is supposed to be elite. He's white.

Posted by Eh? | July 30, 2008 12:47 PM

I'd take Obama's comments on speaking languages a lot more seriously if he actually spoke more than one. He looks bad in comparison to President Bush in that regard, but he's so insanely proud of himself for thinking about it that he can't see just how idiotic it makes him look

And I say this as someone who does speak more than one language, btw.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 12:50 PM

James, Bush does not speak spanish. Obama speaks the Indonesian lingua franca.

And my grandparents didn't go to college, but their children took them seriously when they stressed the importance of education.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 12:55 PM

At least they're not Bruno Maglis.

Posted by Kevin | July 30, 2008 1:01 PM

Umm, Bush speaks more Spanish than any second language for Obama. The latter is the null set, fwiw.

This wouldn't matter, except for the fact that single language man Obama decided to moralize on it.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 1:17 PM

I've noticed that no brand of shoes gets more complements in DC than Adidas. It's one of the best things about this town, IMHO.

Posted by tom veil | July 30, 2008 1:23 PM

""When prominent Indonesians visit the U.S., the first person they want to meet is Obama, says Parnohadiningrat Sudjadnan, the Indonesian ambassador to the U.S. 'Back home people think of him as one of us, or at least one who understands us,' he says, adding that they are delighted to find that Obama speaks passable Bahasa, the language spoken in Indonesia and Malaysia. ""

Why do Cheney-sucking Repiglican assholes like James Robertson spread lies about Obama? It's because it's all they have left. Their movement is dying.

Go Cheney yourself, Robertson.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 30, 2008 1:24 PM

As for Hayes's point, I think it matters wheter the data point dovetails with the narrative the campaign is trying to generate about the opponenet, not that liberals are so much more high-minded than conservatives.

The Obama campaign is not trying to spin a narrative of McCain as an elitist, so the Italian shoes are not helpful.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 30, 2008 1:25 PM

Jim, the only people who have claimed that Bush speaks spanish is himself. Those who actually speak Spanish, such as the Mexican president, have been more than happy to point out that he doesn't.

Obama, on the other hand, is said (with more evidence, given that he lives there) to speak "passable" Bahasa Indonesian.

Once again, however, you're perpetuating a sort of class-slavery by acting resentful when someone who does not know something himself (eg, speaking a foreign European language, or going to college) encourages its importance for others. If my family thought like you, we'd still be farmers. But maybe that's what you want.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 1:28 PM

Why do Cheney-sucking Repiglican assholes like James Robertson spread lies about Obama?

Some of them shut their brain off. Jim-Bob works from home and likely spends all day being fed talking points which he regurgitates. He's not a thinking political being, he's merely an automaton and loyal follower repeating what he has been told. Part of it is lack of time; he's an adult professional and isn't able to keep himself informed and knowledgeable, but still remembers from his youth when he used to be engaged. Acting as a right-wing drone, dutifully absorbing, believing, and repeating what he is told gives him the feeling of being knowledgeable and engaged. If Jim-Bob socializes and works with particularly ignorant people, they may even give him social accolades for appearing knowledgeable.

Others, however, accept that "lying for the greater good" is necessary. It's the same mindset that fostered the lawbreaking in the justice department with the illegal hiring and firing of civil servants on the basis of ideology: they think they're "saving the country," and if defying the obligation to be truthful is what it takes, that is what they're willing to do.

In the end, I care not whether "deep down" James or Al is one or the other; they are both embarassing themselves, their family, and those who attempted to educate them and teach them about the value of being honest and knowledgeable.

James: outsourcing your thinking to others and then regurgitating what you are told here isn't cool. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 1:36 PM

This has apparently been another episode of "the left thinks the right is evil, the right merely thinks the left is wrong". It's not enough for you guys to point out an error; you have to read all sorts of evil into it.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 1:39 PM

James Robertson writes: "This has apparently been another episode of "the left thinks the right is evil, the right merely thinks the left is wrong". It's not enough for you guys to point out an error; you have to read all sorts of evil into it."

You're a torture-supporting asshole, JR. Your evilness has already been proven by your own words. If you're now claiming to be stupid as well, don't bother. That was also previously proven.

You're a liar. It's not just what you do - it's what you are. That you lie most frequently to yourself is immaterial.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 30, 2008 1:46 PM

James,

I for one am willing to entertain the possibility that you are not "evil" (or, as I would put it, that you have a reckless disregard for the truth whenever it suits your political preferences), just gullible.

But I would note that if you knew that Obama spent much of his early childhood in a foreign country, it would seem kinda obvious he might speak the relevant foreign language. So you would have to have been pretty darn gullible indeed to accept this claim, assuming you knew that about Obama's childhood.

Posted by DTM | July 30, 2008 1:47 PM

There's no real shortage of examples of "the right" claiming "the left" is evil. Ever looked at RedState?

Posted by guyx | July 30, 2008 1:53 PM

James Robertson: ignorance, particularly willful ignorance, is a vice and a character flaw. You humiliate those who worked so hard to raise you in the hopes that you would grow up to be a knowledgeable person. Instead you grew up to be a guy who regurgitates talking points and thinks he's knowledgeable.

At the same time, I thought we liberals were all supposed to be just moral relativists. When did we become willing to condemn your moral failures?

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 1:54 PM

Matt - you've really descended pretty far down into hackdom the past few months. Are you sure you're leaving the Atlantic voluntarily?

Posted by Anonymous | July 30, 2008 1:55 PM

Obama "moralized" about learning second languages?

That's why people call you a liar, James Robertson. Because you lie about stuff.

Posted by Woody Bombay | July 30, 2008 2:19 PM

pseudonymous in nc --

Does "inverted snobbery" really "DEFINE" white, working class America?

That's a pretty grand and broad statement to make, characterizing millions of people of very diverse circumstances, political ideology, regional economic and cultural history, economic self-interest etc. -- based on what?

It's true that American culture has always encompassed a long tradition of humor -- expressed, with more or less skill and perceptiveness, by comedians as diverse and differently talented as Will Rogers, Minnie Pearl, Jackie Gleason, various Red Neck and Blue Collar comics, etc. -- that both satirizes AND defends and celebrates the mores of rural people, average suburban guys, the working stiff, etc. --that is, the supposedly simple and powerless -- while at the same time deflating the pompous and powerful. This is comedy that expresses and exploits the unavoidable tensions, resentments and misunderstandings between rural and city people, between the working class and their bosses and "betters," between the middle class and the most affluent, etc. (Tensions and resentments that go both ways, and that are often expressed directly and explicity through the use of negative stereotypes of working class people (Archie Bunker)and rural people (My Name is Earl), or more intermittently and casually in urban comedy (such as Friends, Seinfeld, 30 Rock, etc., etc.).

(And of course expressed politically with blanket assumptions and accusations of stupidity, racism, "low information" voting, bitterness, inability to assess their own self-interest, etc.)

But, rather than simply being "reverse snobbery" (and unlike the urban comedy mentioned above) traditional and modern rural/working man comedy, at its best, defends and reaffirms a very American, very long-standing, although now dying, notion of democratic egalitarianism. That is; the notion that no man stands too far above others to be challenged, criticized or, when appropriate, mocked -- nor does any man stand too stand too far below others to do the challenging, critizing and mocking.

The truth is, as America's most elitely educated middle class and affluent have come to think of themselves, and the country, more and more as a meritocracy, rather than a democracy, such egalitarian notions -- and any ribbing or expressions of resentment by those they do not consider their equals -- have become more and more offensive to them.

Posted by esmense | July 30, 2008 2:25 PM

Does "inverted snobbery" really "DEFINE" white, working class America?

Yes. It's what differentiates them from the white middle class and the traditional immigrant working class. The middle classes are genuine snobs, and the immigrant working classes are the ones who are specifically striving to make sure their children get out of that class.

Posted by Tyro | July 30, 2008 2:35 PM

For what its worth, Indonesian is the 6th or 7th most widely spoken language on the planet; its the national language of Indonesia, Malaysia and for all intents and purposes Brunei. So its a world language of some real significance.

Esmense, I'd find your comments more convincing if I didn't teach quite so many of the children of the folks you defend so ably. There is more to the phenomena that just "reverse snobbery." Lots of folks think of themselves as good people, and by and large they are. Many resent, sometimes rightly and sometimes not so rightly, what they see as being told how to live their lives; sometimes a good many Americans take any discussion of other ways of living as just that kind of telling good people how to live. Equally, many folks see waht they call affirmative action as a large, even massive entitlement to lift others, and not necessarily so deserving others, above themselves; these are often enoughthe same sorts of people, if not the same people, who think 25% of US Fedgov budget goes into development programs abroad rather that 1/4 to 1/2 of 1%.

So there is a good deal of misinformation that gets passed around as well as a goodly amount of bitterness, if my students at a community college north of Dallas are any measure to go by. Lots of folks down here think, mistakenly as it turns out, that they are being lectured by others from places with higher divorce rates, higher rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, higher murder rates. It doesn't help that many big city middle class folks do to varying degrees look down upon then. But Obama's description of many as bitter and holding tight to religion stung, those whom it stung, in part because it has, again if my students are anything to go by, in large part true.

Granted, becoming and staying informed takes lots of time and a degree of skepticism. Not everyone has the time, or makes the time or cultivates the necessary skepticism. But some folks down here at the buckle of the Bible Belt will think and say someone is un-American if they can talk with even of modicum of dispassion about the ways the American government, not Americans as individual people, have engaged or currently engage much of the rest of the world. A goodly number of folks down here seems to think that anyone who can talk about other ways of living, or speaking more languages than just English are somehow not of good faith or even any faith at all. For goodness sake, the folks down in Austin who set the state curriculum standards appear to be very intent on trying a third dodge around teaching kids basic scietific concepts such as evolutionary theory.

In such a world, elitist means not one of us and implies looks down at us whether the person being called an elitist actually looks down or not.

Posted by djeri | July 30, 2008 3:04 PM

Esmense, you do realize that you're being completely dishonest about Bittergate, right?

As far as "white working class" goes, we're not talking about the Rust Belt, because they're Democrats. We're talking about poor Southern whites.

Poor Southern whites resist Coastal liberals because poor Southern whites are still fighting the Civil War. There's nothing to be done about this except to stop honoring the Confederacy and teach it as an unelected group of rich men so dedicated to greed and inequality that they went to war rather than recognize that they lost an election to a moderate, who would have restrained (but not abolished) their crimes against humanity. This would, of course, provoke a cultural Civil War.

Posted by Luke | July 30, 2008 3:13 PM

Esmense, you do realize that you're being completely dishonest about Bittergate, right?

As far as "white working class" goes, we're not talking about the Rust Belt, because they're Democrats.

Reagan Democrats, to be precise.

The "bitter" comment cam during the campaign for the Pennsylvania primary. Obama was referring to Pennsylvania Democratic voters, who would be voting in the primary. I doubt most Pennsylvanians are eager to fight the civil war.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 30, 2008 3:38 PM

Tyro --

Are you suggesting that the white working class, unlike the white middle class and the immigrant working class, is not aspirational, not interested in upward mobility?

This is a non-sensical, and prejudiced, assumption.

I am a marketing professional, raised in a white working class family, who after many years working with a wide range of businesses -- that required me to understand and communicate with Americans from a wide variety of backgrounds -- started my own business, a business that's customer base is almost exclusively white, working class men. I have a lot of direct (rather than theoretical) experience with and knowledge about this demographic. From my own family experience and from my business experience. Plus, my mostly youthful employees are almost entirely drawn from working class backgrounds -- children of the white, rural working class, children of immigrants, urban minorities. These young people ALL share a burning desire to better themselves, improve their skills, raise their standard of living. They differ from their more affluent peers only in this; the resources for doing so are much less easily available to them and while they both respect education and are trying to attain as much as their circumstances allow, they do not make the assumption that the ONLY form of merit that should be respected and that the ONLY route allowable, for working class people like them, into the middle and affluent class and a decent and better life, as well as into participation and clout in the the political conversation, is through the establishment of academic credentials. The acquisition of pragmatic skills and experience, the successful application of those skills, the ability to create something new, concrete and useful -- a widget, a business, a new and improved process -- as well as the demonstration of certain kinds of values in the work place and the community; loyalty, dedication, the assumption of responsibility, the pragmatic ability to solve problems, etc., etc., all are measures of "merit" to the working class.

Both our liberal and the conservative elites start with a similar disrespect for the working class. They only differ in their solution for "the problem" of (their problem with) the working class (which, in reality is this; the economic interests of the working class conflicts with their own.)

The liberal solution to "the problem" is "re-education." That is educate everyone out of the working class (into the middle class with middle class economic interests and proper middle class values) through an elite education -- thus making the working class more like them with no need to challenge their interests and perogatives. Respecting the master craftsman, the self-employed plumber or long term factory worker's opinions and interests, and taking them seriously in the political arena, on the other hand, may mean having to compromise some of one's own elite economic interest.

The conservative solution is exploitation. Exploiting fears, prejudices and using these fears and prejudices to divert people from their own self-interest. (Funny thing is, the Republicans have had the most success with these methods with more AFFLUENT and educated Americans, rather than with the white working class, which has responded to both the liberal and conservatives obvious patronizing disdain for them by participating less and less in the political process -- which they correctly perceive as less and less serving their interests.)

Posted by esmense | July 30, 2008 3:39 PM

McCain the Maveric HOW?

Name one issue that he's different than Bush on?

THERE ARE NONE! ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

Name one. Dare anyone who supports McCain to name somewhere that Bush and McCain disagree on and even if they *DID* disagree, they don't now.

Posted by Mystic55 | July 30, 2008 4:21 PM

Luke --

Poor and working class whites do not account for the Republican's success in the South. It is among the white middle and upper (and educated) classes that conservatism has had it biggest success (The white Southern Evangelicals who support the Republican party, by the way, tend to be affluent -- poor, white Southerners are not the party's base. They, like working people in the rest of the country, tend to be apathetic voters.)

Old resentments are still at play in that region, and cultural resentments abound. But there is another reality, an economic reality, that "Coastal" liberals never give any consideration to, one that, in terms of how the Republican base in the South perceives its self interest, and how it votes, is much more significant than these hot button cultural issues. The simple fact is this; the South has an entirely different RECENT economic history than other parts of the country. It was not, for instance, positioned to take full advantage of the post WWII economic boom enjoyed by most of the country in the 50s and 60s -- in fact, for most of that era much of the South's economic fortunes were not much better than they had been during the Great Depression. But, during that same period, the country was making a great investment in extracting energy from and expanding energy production in, the South. That paid off in increased manufacturing capability and increased prosperity in the 70s and 80s -- s period of increasing conservative economic power, increasing deregulation, decreasing union power, etc. In other words, the very economic policies that were working against the interest of working people in the Rust Belt in the 70s and 80s were experienced as the basis of the New South's prosperity during the same time period. Is it any wonder that the South sees its economic interests very differently than much of the rest of the country?

As for Obama's bitter comment. It was a banal observation made to people who share his class prejudices and assumptions. Many middle class and affluent people hold and express such views about people less affluent and educated than themselves. But just because a view is broadly held, doesn't make it true.

I don't believe the problem with the statement is that it reveals Obama as a snob. I think the problem is that it reveals unexamined class assumptions and stereotypical thinking. I expect better than that from him. And from progressives in general.

Posted by esmense | July 30, 2008 4:32 PM

Oh my god: shoes.

Posted by Kelly | July 30, 2008 4:47 PM

"...grown men in crocs?"

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/5234

Posted by Shen | July 30, 2008 5:08 PM

DJERI --

I don't see the resentments and closed mindedness you describe as being limited to members of the working class. I think these are rather widespread human traits. (And I certainly wouldn't judge mature voters or judge whole classes of people based on the callow traits exhibited by high schoolers, with limited experience and knowledge of the world or themselves, of any class.) I've reached this conclusion as someone who has traveled very broadly and lived and worked with people from all walks of life. (I come from a working class family -- very committed to social, economic and racial equality -- I never heard a racist joke until I was in my 30s; the joke teller? A multi-millionaire Harvard grad. In my observation prejudice, of all kinds, is a matter of moral character, not class or educational attainment.)

What I do see, in terms of our political conversation, is much examination and condemnation of the working class by commentators whose own limited perspectives go unexamined, whose own prejudices are often projected (onto the working class), and whose defensiveness in the face of criticism is certainly equal to that of the working people they so freely criticize. Working people who, by the way, by and large have no access to or powerful, respectable way to participate in the public conversation.

If you are a working class person attempting to participate in the public political conversation your choice is between tolerating patronizing liberal insults to your intelligence and moral values or agreeing with conservative's insulting, degrading and ugly assumptions about your intelligence, prejudices and resentments. Nowhere will you find direct representation of your interests or genuine respect for your unique perspective and experience.

Posted by esmense | July 30, 2008 5:40 PM

As a guy who has to wear dress shoes all day, every day, I actually don't begrudge McCain for dropping a lot of dough on a pair of shoes. In my experience, it is very much worthwhile to spend a lot for comfortable shoes.

I do begrudge him for wearing loafers, though. Only old men wear loafers.

Oh, wait...

Posted by McKingford | July 30, 2008 5:44 PM

These shoes rock!
These shoes suck!
These shoes cost 520 dollars.
These shoes cost 520 dollars.
These shoes cost 520 FUCKING DOLLARS.
LET'S GET EM!

Posted by John McCain | July 30, 2008 5:50 PM

I bought a pair of those shoes this spring and I have to say they are comfortable, stylish and well made. At $165 for the pair at Nordstrom's Rack it was hard-earned money well spent. But I never would have paid $520 for them. They're not worth it, unless, like Senator McCain, $520 is a rounding error in your bank account.

Posted by Platypus | July 30, 2008 6:08 PM

Obama is not an elitist and those shoes are nice but shoes don't maketh the man or the president. I'm supporting Obama, visit WHYOBAMA08.ORG!

Posted by Aiken Blue | July 30, 2008 7:07 PM

esmense: You're right to some degree that working-class participation in the political conversation is framed by middle-class caricatures of working-class values. That's a straightforward class analysis, and it's because American politics is largely conducted under the auspices of two right-wing parties.

I think there's a difference between 'My Name Is Earl' and, say, the Blue Collar Tour that goes beyond the classic 'Archie Bunker, folk hero' problem that arises from satirising working class values. There's a definite appeal to complacency from Foxworthy and company.

(And I'm not going to play Four Yorkshiremen with you, either.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 30, 2008 7:44 PM

pseudonymous in nc --

I can't claim real familiarty with the Blue Collar Tour, but don't Foxworthy and Engvall (sp?) play or present themselves as middle class suburban guys? Not working class.

Adopting a faux, usually pretty obnoxious, working class persona is all the rage on the part of media personalities nowadays -- from Wall Street commentators on the money channel to a whole bevy of millionaire political commentators all across the ideological spectrum.

Just because they pretend to talk like truck drivers doesn't mean they represent anything about the working class.

Posted by esmense | July 30, 2008 9:20 PM

Obama himself has said he only speaks one language. He hasn't been to Indonesia in decades, and that was a visit to Hindu Bali. His teachers in Indonesia didn't think he knew much of the local language when he was a child. Perhaps he brushed up a few stock phrases for a visitor?

Certainly, Obama has had more chances to learn foreign languages than most Americans (eight years in prep school and two Ivy League degrees), but he didn't put much effort into learning languages.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 30, 2008 9:38 PM

Despite reports that some Indonesian visitors claim that Obama speaks some degree of Bahasa, and some degree of speculation that McCain at one time had some level of grasp on Vietnamese, neither seems to have or have had any interest in a foreign language fluency. This not only doesn't surprise me: in this day & culture, I would think that any politician, and especially any Democrat, truly fluent in a foreign language other than Latin (maybe Hebrew is acceptable too) would be accused of being too foreign.

Posted by El Cid | July 31, 2008 6:59 AM

Esmense,

You repeat yourself.

No, I'm not talking about highschoolers. We get two groups at the College, 18-20 year olds and then a group of older students who have been out in the world. But even if they were highschoolers, the opinions of the younger ones reflect the opinions they hear at home, perhaps a little rawer and a little less examined.

The problem with the bitter comment was not that it is banal or unexamined. The problem is that lots of folks are bitter and resentful. As you put it, for some folks only merit should succeed. When others succeed, in the eyes of some its not about merit, but rather unfair advantage even when it hard to find evidence for unfair advantage. Much the same holds for a portion of the people who describe themselves as Christian, see their communities in tatters and their kids wild under the churchgoing exteriors; easier to say we're under attack than to ponder. That is lots of folks are bitter and holding onto their religion; some get this from their parents and some get it from their experiences as adults.

I don't doubt that many people, such as yourself, have worked pretty hard and for a long time. Nor do I doubt that many folks, again such as yourself, think of themselves as basically good people. Its the shadows and the flip sides I'm concerned with, the not always pleasant sides of working hard, thinking oneself good and seeing others succeed.

I grant you that many of the more affluent don't give a tinkers damn what the plumber or the roofer or the arborist thinks. I'm only saying that in all too many cases thats a two way street.

For what its worth, the more affluent students are often not so much bitter as lazy. Thats somewhat different, and to my mind not very attractive, in some ways less so.

Posted by djeri | July 31, 2008 8:09 AM

would be accused of being too foreign.

Latin would be a total disaster for a Democrat. It would say I don't watch NASCAR in a language nobody could understand.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | July 31, 2008 8:27 AM

djeri-

Lots of people are bitter and resentful And many ofthose people are among the most fortunate people in our culture. The conservative base isn't working class -- it's affluent and educated. It is people who are fearful of losing what they have -- and who resent others who they believe are making demands on their personal resources. "People with needs" is how their liberal counterparts have sneeringly referred to these fellow Americans throughout the campaign.

The working class makes a handy scapegoat to blame for the lack of progress in terms of progressive politics in the last few decades. But the working class doesn't have the power to change the political conversation or economic environment. The real blame has to be laid at the feet of those, on both the left and right, with affluence and power; it is their classism, sexism, racism that has thwarted economic and social progress, accounted for the widening income gap, decreasing wages, etc.

Affluent liberals tsk tsking over the shortcomings of the working class, condemning legitimate cultural supports instead of acknowledging and accepting responsibility for legitimate economic complaints, are offering no solutions to the problem -- only excuses for their own betrayals and failures.

Posted by esmense | July 31, 2008 12:27 PM

Esmense,

I think there are some points of agreement between us. Noting them may help clarify where you and I differ.

I agree, there are lots of bitter and resentful people. Only some of these people will be working class, and only some of the working class will be largely bitter and resentful. If you think I said something different above, please let me know how.

I also agree that many among the more affluent and powerful classes, as you put it on both the left and the right, have all too often, again as you put it, twarted economic and social progress. I take this to be a general phenomena, not one which applies primarily or solely to the white working class or to white working class men.

I think there may be some general differences btween the left and the right here. In my experience affluent Republicans generally just don't care very much about the circumstances of the less well to do; they do however care a great deal about their own tax rates and so forth. Concommitently much of what we might call the do-good left dispairs of (you call it tsk tsking) what they take to be the foibles of the less well educated. The former I take to be selfish; the latter, I concur, could listen more.

But I'm not at all sure that this makes discussions of working class bitterness banal. As I said, I see it in my students. Further, bitterness does differ from class to class, at least amongst my students. The more affluent and lazy students are generally bitter if you ask them to work--reading is just too hard and that sort of nonsense. Whereas some of my working class students are often willing to work but sure that someone else is getting a free or freeish ride;(we have a lot of first in their families to college students, a lot of students who can describe what counts as poverty in the US from direct experience, and a lot of students for whom there really is no working safety net, but then this is Texas). They often enough misidentify who is getting that free ride, and they often enough, but not always, succumb to the appeals of the right--experts, do-gooders, elitists, people of color, immigrants are doing this to you. That the people making these appeals are often enough rich, they don't seem to notice, and self-serving, but again they often enough don't seem to notice. Maybe this is Texas, but then again maybe not. I only provide an ethnographic account based in what I see and hear.

I suppose what I'm asking you is whether you see these folks I'm describing as agents in their own lives?

You write:

The working class makes a handy scapegoat to blame for the lack of progress in terms of progressive politics in the last few decades. But the working class doesn't have the power to change the political conversation or economic environment.

But if what I'm seeing and saying has some empirical and evidentiary value, the working class, or at least portions of it, has made up a large part of the necessary Greek chorus without which political conversations and economic environements do not come about.

I don't know where you live, but around here religion is a most ambiguous phenomena especially when religious people enter into the arena of education policy (evolution, human sexuality and a number of other issues) proclaiming personal relationships with a transcendent diety and the literal truth of personal interpretations of one of the world's most internally complicated texts. I've had students wear their crosses to class as if those crosses were armor and others tell me their friends had told them they were going to hell for owning (yep owning) anthropology textbooks and still others express contempt for any idea whch differed no matter how slightly from their own. Not all of these students were children either. Nor is my experience singular.

I'll grant you that do-gooding tsk tsking doesn't help. But neither do claims of powerlessness and general assertions of bias, thta being many students term for any opinion not matter how well supported at odds with their own. So perhaps the working class does make a handy scapegoat, but some portions of the working class do evince bitterness and cling to religion, at least in cases of many of my students. These two notions, are far as I can see, need not be mutually contradictory any more than either of them need be banal.

Posted by djeri | July 31, 2008 4:56 PM