POLITICS APRIL 18, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Barack Obama’s comments about the white working class have thrown the political campaign into a particularly comic spasm of pretense and hypocrisy, but I was planning to let it go, I really was, until George F. Will decided to leap to the defense of the proletariat. Yes, that George F. Will. The fabulously wealthy, bow tie–wearing, pretentious reference–mongering, Anglophilic fop who grew up in a university town as a professor’s son, earned two advanced degrees, has a designated table at a French restaurant in Georgetown, and, had he dwelt for any extended time among the working class, would be lucky to escape without his underwear being yanked up over his ears. Will devoted his column to expressing his displeasure at Obama’s “condescension” toward the working class.
Obama’s offense, as we all know, was to call white working-class voters “bitter” over their economic misfortune during the last few decades, and thus prone to “cling to” guns and religion. Taken literally, Obama was saying that these voters have taken up religion and gun ownership only over the last few decades--a notion so transparently false that he surely couldn’t believe it. And, in fact, he doesn’t: In a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose, Obama described how traditions of hunting and churchgoing stretch back generations. He proceeded to argue that, in the absence of plausible economic improvement, people in small towns will vote on the basis of those traditions that give their lives stability. This is not a controversial view among Democrats. Bill Clinton once said that Republicans “find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them”--a less respectful expression of the same analysis.
But Clinton said that more than a decade and a half ago, and, since then, Democrats and Republicans have developed an exquisite sensitivity toward any slight against the white working class. Blue-collar whites now occupy the same position in American politics that people of color hold in the smaller political subculture of academia: a victim-hero class whose positions (usually as interpreted by outsiders) enjoy the presumption of moral superiority.
The victim-hero class is the object of competitive flattery and the subject of mutual accusations of disrespect. You can’t read a Peggy Noonan paean to real America--“a healthy and vibrant place full of religious feeling and cultural energy and Bible study and garage bands and sports-love and mom-love and sophistication and normality”--without thinking of a junior faculty member extolling the dignity of Guatemalan peasant women. Bill O’Reilly’s or Tim Russert’s endless invocations of their working-class backgrounds are the equivalent of the campus activist who introduces every opinion by saying “As a woman of color . . . .” (The one difference being that the latter really is a woman of color, while the former are multimillionaires who retain only the most remote connection to blue-collar life.)
Since blue-collar whites have been trending Republican, conservatives enjoy a presumptive affinity and have taken it upon themselves to police the political culture for any affronts against their favored class. The rules of the game, understood now by all sides, hold that elitism is defined entirely in social, rather than economic, terms. Thus Obama’s attempts to highlight his (relative) lack of wealth did not win him any points. Nor did McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, attract any criticism when he called Obama an “elitist” within a few days of convening a gathering of Washington lobbyists at Johnny’s Half Shell on Capitol Hill.
On the other hand, McCain did stir up a bit of negative publicity when bloggers discovered that what his campaign website billed as Cindy McCain’s recipes turned out to be copied verbatim from the Food Network. To be down with the working class, you needn’t represent its political interests or even share its lifestyle. You simply have to be able to convincingly imitate its social customs.
To urge the white working class to vote on the basis of economic policy is itself considered an act of elitism. When Obama and other liberals reproach blue-collar whites for voting their values over their wallet, argues Will, they are accusing those workers of “false consciousness.” A Wall Street Journal editorial took umbrage that Obama “diminishes the convictions of those voters who care more about the right to bear arms, or faith in God, than they do about the AFL-CIO’s agenda.”
But nobody’s challenging the validity of caring more about your religion, or even your right to hunt, than your income. The objection is whether it makes sense to vote on that basis. There are, after all, stark differences between the two parties on economic matters. Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on.
Democrats, on the other hand, have no plans to keep anybody from attending church or hunting. A few years ago, their gun-control agenda revolved around issues like safety locks, banning assault weapons, and other restrictions carefully designed to have virtually no impact on hunters or average gun owners. Now Democrats have abandoned even those meager steps. The GOP’s appeal on those “issues” rests on cultural pandering rather than any concrete legislative program.
And, while it may be elitist to say so, voting for a politician merely because he can mimic your lifestyle is not a very good idea. George Will and the Journal editors would never dream of voting on the basis of which candidate related best to their culture. They support the candidates who share their policy goals, not those who share their passion for watching baseball, or flogging the servants, or whatever other pastimes they may enjoy.
Now, it’s true that many working-class whites also vote on social issues that do have some political relevance, like abortion or gay marriage. It’s certainly not irrational on its face to vote your values over your wallet. (Democratic billionaires do it, too.) On the other hand, conservatives routinely express their fury that a majority of Jews stubbornly flout their own “self-interest”--defined as low tax rates and a maximally hawkish Middle East policy--to vote Democratic. The process of trying to persuade others to reconsider the nature of their self-interest is not some Marxist exercise or an accusation of false consciousness. It’s what we call “democracy.”
Sorry, did that sound condescending?
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.
144 comments
Elites watch PBS for free. The White Working Class pays to watch FOX. Elites walk their dogs in the park. The White Working Class pays to drink expensive beer in a ballpark. Elites fly kites on a windy day. The White Working Class flies Southwest. Elites read books from the library. The White Working Class plays $40 video games on $250 sound systems. The Elite drive used Honda Civics. The White Working Class drives new Suburbans. Turns out that I just don't have enough money to be poor, so I'll have to settle for a life of snobbery and elitism.
-
April 18, 2008 at 12:04pm
Chait shows again why he is the best.
- Mizzou
April 18, 2008 at 12:06pm
Yes, but don't you wish you could write as well as George.
-
April 18, 2008 at 12:13pm
http://tinyurl.com/5zys57 George Will at his "working class" best!
- Crock1701
April 18, 2008 at 12:15pm
Please send a copy to Paul Krugman.
- timteeter
April 18, 2008 at 12:15pm
"Sorry, did that sound condescending?" Perhaps a bit petulant. To employ accusations of tangential facade with the same is questionable strategy. I reckon. More to say on this later. I'll try to help you with your blind spot. Or am I being too condescending?
- boxo
April 18, 2008 at 12:16pm
Excellent analysis and skewering. One objection, which applies to several other very astute commentators: A careful reading of Obama's statements preceding the "cling to" sentence reveal that he did NOT say that rural citizens vote on cultural values because they have economic problems. He clearly meant that rural citizens believe that voting on economic issues would be useless in lobby-controlled Washington and that their vote on cultural values is their consolation.
- Marvin Sussman
April 18, 2008 at 12:18pm
As a Southern, churchgoing, public school-educated, beer-drinking, white son of two pastors, I say "Hear hear!" Good column.
- Bigfish
April 18, 2008 at 12:38pm
Good job, Chait! Even if with your endless sucking up to the far left, they still hate you and TNR. See the dailykos today which makes fun of TNR and touts the Nation. As for the working-class, no one on the staff of TNR since Michael Kelly has any clue or sympathy for it. TNR is composed of a staff of young white extremely well educated and well-to-do writers mostly from the Ivy League and many with advanced degrees. This is nothing to sneer at but demonstrates that you are not exactly in touch with public sentiment. It is ironic that a paper that produces a great product, loses in circulation to The Nation, which consists of uninformed ridiculous hyperbole which would be better suited to the huffingtonpost.
- Ian
April 18, 2008 at 12:42pm
God, Chait, you read my mind. I have been ranting about this all week and frustrated that no TV journalists or talkng heads seem smart enough to point out these obvious points. Can you get on TV somewhere and mix it up with these fools, please, like your buddy Beinert does? Nietzsche understood 150 years ago that what united utopian social leftist imaginations of a classless society and dogmatic Christianity was simple resentment of ones (imagined?) betters and that this is a primary motivator of people and is to be denounced as a political tool in all its forms. So why is it ok for the Right to indulge in the latter, but denounce any mild hint of the former (as if any Democrat is advocating or desiring a classless society)?
- Brian
April 18, 2008 at 12:42pm
An excellent, testy analysis, Mr. Chait. I think that all this stuff that was the subject of the first half of the recent ABC News-sponsored debate is what happens (i) when a primary process goes on to long; (ii) when there isn't a great deal of difference between the candidates; and (iii) when media outlets go for what they imagine will boost ratings rather than for substance. I thought that both Senators were frustrated by the quality of the questions and that Senator Obama (who took most of the incoming fire this time) handled them just fine. That he didn't look particularly happy doing so is neither here nor there. And the media are doing it again! (going trivial, I mean). They're treating McCain's poll numbers in various scenarios as if they mean something, while it's obvious that at this stage they mean absolutely nothing. On the basis of these numbers, people are tearing their hair out about a likely Republican victory in November. You heard it here first (well, maybe not first) -- either Clinton or Obama (most likely Obama) will handle John Mccain quite nicely in the Fall. The "third Bush term" argument is a winner, because it's based solidly on what McCain has committed to and it's what most voters are wanting to run screaming away from. 'Way back when, there was all this talk of the Democrats' two great candidates. Well, they are . . . they're not perfect, but they're damn good, and certainly good enough to win this year.
- Stanley Crowe
April 18, 2008 at 12:54pm
Obama never said that working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they are bitter. Nor, even if "taken literally," did he claim that these voters "have taken up religion and gun ownership only over the last few decades." Please, let's dare to shut up for a moment and parse the quote: "...they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." For God's sake, parse it! Just parse it! The whole thing! Obama says these voters are clinging to guns, religion and so forth AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN THEIR FRUSTRATIONS. He says they are clinging to these things AS EXPLANATIONS FOR THEIR BITTERNESS AND THEIR ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS. Yes, those last seven words are real, actual words. They alter the meaning of the preceding words. Words work like that. Of course, Obama should have known that after uttering that Unholy Trinity, "cling to religion," the shrieking from the right-wingers would drown out his meaning. But Obama did not state that working-class whites were "clinging to religion" like Linus's blanket -- he said they were clinging to THE EXCUSES PROVIDED BY religion, guns, immigrants, and so forth, as ways to explain why they're so damn poor and insecure. Oh no. Obama uttered another universally-acknowledged yet uncomfortable truth. How can this man ever be President?
- bdgreen
April 18, 2008 at 1:50pm
thanks for this article jonathan. more evidence that you are one of the best writers on the web or anywhere else.
- sephirothic
April 18, 2008 at 2:02pm
Funny and spot-on. Thank you. There's another reason why Mr. Will's accusation of condescension-as-liberal-mindset doesn't fly and that's because he cannot hold his argument to the same epistemological standards to which he holds liberals. If liberals cannot claim false consciousness among the working class, then he cannot claim it among liberals (most liberals don't think working class people are "falsely conscious", he only asserts that). Thanks again, great fun.
- Read Spear
April 18, 2008 at 2:03pm
Man, Chait needs to start a cult. I'd join it. In a new york minute. After reading the first paragraph I spent 5 minutes ROFL. And I mean that actually quite literally, ROF...L.
- emigdio
April 18, 2008 at 2:03pm
I'm confused. As a working class schmuck, am I supposed to support the guys that don't want to raise the minimum wage, or the guys who want to deflate the current de-facto (market rate) wage by expanding the labor pool by a few million freshly-legalized immigrants? I'll take my chances with the guys who drop lots of nickles when the economy is hot, rather than trust a government breadline or nuveau-WPA job.
- Zed
April 18, 2008 at 2:03pm
Great Article!
- John
April 18, 2008 at 2:16pm
Please, to the first person with the opportunity to do so: Punch George Will in the nose and see if he cries. Naturally, you'll need video of the event. Thanks.
- sportdoc62
April 18, 2008 at 2:24pm
I think you missed the point of Will's article: 1. Obama is an arrogant ass who believes anyone with a different value set than his needs to become more educated, or just doesn't understand what's important in life. 2. People don't cling to guns and religion, they enjoy protection and/or hunting, and they have faith in something bigger than themselves (I guess Wright probably doesnt have time to talk about that with his anti-American, racist bigot platforms). You are missing the point, which is not surprising, as the Dem party is "progressively" moving themselves so far to the left that they are out of touch with everyday Americans. Yes, Will is wealthy, but that doesn't mean he has diff values that middle-class members of society. And by the way, your article is disingenuous, if not inaccurate, when you say Dems don't want to take away people's guns. Last time I checked, that is a major party platform (you know, gun control). And it is painfully obvious how much the Dems dislike conservative's strong religious beliefs. It was also nice how you distorted GOP tax policy with a blue-blood pitch. Sounded straight out of a union hall rally. Nice to see the New Republic is dedicated to impartial coverage of the news. Bottom line, Obama is going to blow this general election because the blue-collar Dems will either sit out the election or go to McCain, and many women will do the same. Congrats, the biggest election year for Dems since Kennedy's run in 1960 and you are going to get creamed. McCain '08
- brad
April 18, 2008 at 2:58pm
Yasher koach Jonathan, a great point. I especially liked what you had to say about George Will.
- jyunis
April 18, 2008 at 3:04pm
Your argument that, "Blue-collar whites now occupy the same position in American politics that people of color hold in the smaller political subculture of academia: a victim-hero class whose positions (usually as interpreted by outsiders) enjoy the presumption of moral superiority." is one of the more honest observations about our political climate that I've read in a while, but you only get it mostly right. To make the former sound as indefensible as the latter you added "White" to Blue Collar - perhaps to make the Conservative mythology sound as racist as Liberal one, when, in fact, the anti-Elitist arguments from the Right that I've read seem to simply speak of Blue Collar America, not White Blue Collar America. Now, I guess you can argue that it's implied, but I think you actually need to make that argument, not assume it's understood. Because, whereas "people of color" is a remarkably imprecise term that simply does not refer to a community in any real sense (what do Middle-Class African Americans have in common with Guatemalan immigrants or Upper-Class Asian-Americans?), "working class/Blue Collar Americans" denotes a level of income, type of job, similar economic vulnerabilities, and similar values - hard work, personal responsibility, family, community, faith, etc. And I (and many Conservatives...like George Will) have come to the conclusion that these latter values are truly what sustain us a nation, and are remarkably under-appreciated by the Left.
- Adam Levick
April 18, 2008 at 3:12pm
A lot of the Jewish thing comes from the Holocaust. To this day many Jews make the egregious error of thinking Hitler was of the "right" and his enemies were socialists. In all reality Hitler was one of the great socialist leaders of all time and one of the most bloody. His greatest enemies were the capitalists and libertarian thinkers. It was the Nazi's, after all, who drove Ludwig von Mises from his Austrian home into exile.
- cthulhu2008
April 18, 2008 at 3:15pm
But George Will loves baseball. That is the intelligentsia's gateway drug to the common man.
- Mike O
April 18, 2008 at 3:40pm
Whether working class whites have been trending GOP is not to be taken for granted...Ruy Texiera made a decent case. But, Larry Bartels found that the shift of non-college whites is almost entirely attributable to the demise of the formerly Democratic Solid South.
- Dark Heart
April 18, 2008 at 3:46pm
Excellent. Laser vision, as usual.
- ralphnelle
April 18, 2008 at 4:28pm
Great essay. I will envision your first paragraph whenever I am forced to endure George Will's asinine visage on Meet the Press. It's pretty much exactly what I thought when I heard his pompous faux outrage last Sunday. He wouldn't know how an economically depressed white person feels if one screamed in his face.
- Rowena
April 18, 2008 at 4:47pm
Jonathan Chait's eagerness to defend Obama against any "misstatements" he makes is truly revealing. So revealing is his desire to acquit the Teflon candidate that he's willing to distort the actual criticisms made of his "bitterness" remarks. Chait believes Obama doesn't really believe what he said. And maybe he's right about that, if you conclude from those remarks what Chait does, that “Taken literally, Obama was saying that these voters have taken up religion and gun ownership only over the last few decades. . . .” But of course the very rational criticisms directed Obama’s way focused on nothing of that sort. And surely Chait must know that. Which raises very substantive questions as to why he, Chait, would wish to misrepresent the obvious meaning of Obama’s words: The religious faith of rural working class folks is based on the increasing economic problems they’ve faced, which also predisposes them to cling to their guns as well. If you understand Obama’s words to mean that, rather than the silly and obviously wrong meaning Chait, and Chait alone wishes Obama’s remarks to mean, then you might easily see why Obama’s critics are perfectly correct to label him along with many other Democratic candidates who view the working class from the elite, liberal view as dupes, as people sighing the sigh of oppressed peoples, and for whom religion is some atavistic phenomenon. By the way, trying to turn the tables on Obama’s critics, most notably George Will, by calling them elitist does nothing at all to reduce the insults that Obama directed at blue-collar folks in Pennsylvania. If people have deliberately misread Obama’s words, why are his subsequent “clarifications” so pathetic? Why is he so often at a loss to actually respond to criticisms of his blunders, including what he knew and when he knew what he knew about the good Reverend Wright. For goodness sake, Mr. Chait, your phony desire to cast the elitist net over a wider area, a net with major design flaws at that, only substantiates the uproar over Mr. Obama’s dismissive remarks.
- at_david
April 18, 2008 at 5:35pm
P. S. Chait acknowledges that working class folks have been gravitating towards Republicans for some time now. Does he have any idea why? Hint: Democrats have been calling them stupid, ignorant, victims for about the past thirty years. Do you remember Franks book, "What's Wrong with Kansas?" Goodness, they vote against their own economic interests! he exclaims in the book's dismissive voice. Of course, so anyone who does so must be inferior to the likes of the fat cat Democratic candidates. Right, Mr. Chait or do you still wish to claim that Franks wasn't insulting the good people of Kansas? Obama, his defenders claim, was only stating the obvious, they say. What exactly is so obvious that it requires several clarifications to get right?
- at_david
April 18, 2008 at 5:58pm
Two words: Thank you.
- Andy Moursund
April 18, 2008 at 6:36pm
Very convenient of you to omit the most offensive part of Obama's statement, where he essentially characterizes working class voters as xenophobic racists: "(they cling to guns or religion) or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment..." I don't think there's any way to construe that part of Obama's message in a non-condescending fashion, though I'd appreciate it if you'd at least try, rather than simply ignoring evidence that complicates your argument.
- Jay Kraut
April 18, 2008 at 6:56pm
George Will aside... you forget to mention that Obama adds that these voters are also xenophobic (anti-immigrant and anti-trade). Actually the whole exercise was to lower expectations so that if he lost badly in Pennsylvania, he would have an excuse – “those bitter voters”. And go easy on George... he’s always gassing on about Baseball so he’s gotta be one of the common ballpark folk. Pass me a Chardonnay with them peanuts.
- Smartprimate
April 18, 2008 at 8:29pm
Wow! Jonathan, you've poked your stick into a hornets' nest alright. Some of the people posting negative responses here are clearly all riled up beyond the normal. Something you said must have gotten under their fingernails. Congratulations. Nicely done!
-
April 18, 2008 at 8:54pm
sorry left out my handle on the above . . .
- ironyroad
April 18, 2008 at 8:55pm
All the parsing, discing and slicing of the argument whether or not the people of Kansas, or where ever have voted counter to their best economic interest is tedious and possibly irrelevant today. When the Franks book was written people were at a lesser level of disadvantage which may have allowed them to vote non-financially relevant issues. That time has passed with the current economic downturn and the housing crisis. Now there are people who are really hurting with no relief in sight. We will just have to wait and see if they go to the voting booth in 2008 and exercise the luxury of voting against their best economic interest. Commitment to social issues is one thing food on the table or whether you lose your house is quite another matter. I think you will see people voting with greater practicality in 2008 since only those who have not been paying attention at all know full well they have been screw by the Republicans for the past seven years.
- rbrown207
April 18, 2008 at 9:47pm
Double high five, Chait. This was especially welcome because not only is Will a repeat offender with his [condescending] fetization of the lunchpailatariat, but he's part of a long tradition, as you noted. This needed to be done, and you did it very well.
- psantillana
April 19, 2008 at 12:39am
Brilliant!!!
- Janet S.
April 19, 2008 at 1:54am
cthulhu2008, thanks for that enlightening discussion of why us Jews do not support Republicans. Sorry, I could not help the sarcasm. It has more to do with the close relationship between segregation of Blacks here in the U.S. with the early Nazi segregation of Jews into ghetto's, the restricted facilities and witnessing that lack of justice here in the U.S. led many young Jews, like Andrew Goodman, to go from NYC to participate in the civil rights movement. Andrew unfortunately lost his life for that cause when he was murdered in MS during Freedom Summer. And that experience is diametrically opposed to the post-Goldwater Republicans. It did not help either that Goldwater called himself "half-Jewish", but he was really raised Episcopalian. But that is a debate for another day and this entire line of discussion is off-topic. I personally found the essay fascinating. I find it fascinating the assumptions that exist about "real Americans" and the "heartland". Another problem I have with the "working class whites" group construction is that I personally do not see it as homogenous. Through all of my travels throughout our "heartland", I just don't see it. Maybe one could construct general regional distinctions of groups of "working class whites" and you could give each regional group a stupid label, like Mark Penn does. But it is just surely not the same, not matter what these "condescending" idiots would like to believe.
- Bubba
April 19, 2008 at 2:34am
Okay I read this comment on obama "Taken literally, Obama was saying that these voters have taken up religion and gun ownership only over the last few decades--a notion so transparently false that he surely couldn't believe it. And, in fact, he doesn't: In a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose" My question is why shouldn't elieve this as opposed to what he said on Charlie Rose? My impression of him between nippling on incredibly expensive ham and bowling a 37 is that hes a snob. Quite frankly I am more likely to believe what he said in a what was supposed to be a private talk as opposed to what he said in a public forum. Compined with his friendship with Ayers and the psycho pastor Wright I think he is fairly well defined. He lack of any significant attempt to cross the divide between Dems an Reps during his senate tenure also defines him. His lying about his involvement onthe gun control issue is telling.
- tim
April 19, 2008 at 6:32am
This is not Jonathan's best. We don't get anywhere in these final months with a battle of wits between these guys. The story is how both sides exploit the fears and political shallowness of millions of voters. If the story remains the word "bitter, in this case, as it once did, "us versus them" on the other side, we never get down to any substance. I'd like to see a story over the next week or so on this. How coverage is so surface level--emotion, soundbites--on both sides that overall political discourse suffers. Paul Krugman sometimes encourages journalists to do better. Someone should take up that idea and flesh it out with a few thousand words.
- Cubs 08
April 19, 2008 at 7:46am
...on the mark except for one minor point - these dumbed down working class whites and their white collar bretheren do in fact vote for their economic interest....increasing the Earned Income Tax where the govt pays you, instead of vive versa, is not their view of economic interest...nor the idea that what's best for AFSCME, NTA etc is what's best for them. So just add economic interest to guns, flags, religion and you have it nailed.
- TG
April 19, 2008 at 8:01am
A bow tie doesn't a fop make.
- Bookes
April 19, 2008 at 9:00am
Why would it be surprising that a political party kisses the butt of vital swing voters? The Reagan Democrats have been critical to GOP electoral success. Don't expect the lip service to end, while the GOP has nothing substantial to offer these voters.
- John
April 19, 2008 at 9:06am
Mr. Chait you must be a real tough guy to take on George (the fop) WILL. YOU MUST BE REALLY DOWN WITH THE PEOPLE.
- Kevin J Van Riper
April 19, 2008 at 9:13am
Jonathan, I've forwarded your article to a few students as part of their education in rhetoric. George Will a "fop" who "flogs his servants"? Quintessential example of the ad hominem attack, one of only two rhetorical gambits left to the Left (the other one you can figure out eventually if you employ a little intellectual honesty).
- John Rogitz
April 19, 2008 at 9:28am
By leaving out the "scared of people different from them" and the "anti-immigrant" portion of Sen. Obama's statement, you leave a gapping hole in your argument. Obama lumped together fear of brown people and anti-immigrant fervor with going to church and gun ownership. Assuming Obama thinks the first two are unacceptable behavior, how can this not be interpreted to mean that going to church and gun ownership are some kind of bad thing people do when they don't have "economic security." If you don't understand why "What's the Matter With Kansas" is offensive to people who vote on social issues, then you're not going to get why his quote was offensive. On the other hand, many rich liberals vote on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, "separating" church and state) and I haven't seen an article decrying them for voting on issues that don't matter. Because of course rich people can consider other issues, but working class folks who vote on gay marriage or illegal immigration are just wrong to do so, right?
- Adam C
April 19, 2008 at 9:36am
Another guy with a seven-figure net worth (Jonathan Chait) telling the rest of us how to think because we're too dumb to figure it our for ourselves. Get used to the sound of "President McCain"
- Nick Wicked
April 19, 2008 at 9:37am
"George Will and the Journal editors would never dream of voting on the basis of which candidate... share[s] their passion for watching baseball, or flogging the servants, or whatever other pastimes they may enjoy." Brilliant!
-
April 19, 2008 at 9:51am
Not that Chait will ever understand this, but the aboriginals of Borneo, er, oops, I mean the citizens of Pennsylvania, don't expect their President to BE a gun-toting, bible-thumping, hillybilly. But they do expect their President not to think of THEM that way. When Barak does his anthropologist's disection of them, or Hillary does her Annie Oakley routine, or Michael Dukakis takes his tank for a spin, these people see through it. The point, Mr. Chait, is that these folks are not as stupid as you think, and they resent you thinking it. George Will, no matter where he went to school, or what kind of ties he wears, does not ooze contempt for middle class Americans. Barak does, and so does Chait.
- Eppur Si
April 19, 2008 at 10:03am
Democrats in general may be backing off gun control but check Obama's history ... not what he is saying now to get elected.
- Tariq
April 19, 2008 at 10:06am
Well, two things strike me. One, you seem to have some kind of disturbed homosexually based urge to see George Will pained and humiliated; you should get help. Two, hmmm ... you seem to think rural-dwellers roam the country-side hating people with bow-ties; I guess that is part of the insanity that causes them to vote against such brilliant Democratic-Socialist concepts like the "Great" Society programs. TOH
- The Objective Historian
April 19, 2008 at 10:19am
The only people who vote for Democrats are those willing to sell their souls for a free sandwich.
- Jim
April 19, 2008 at 10:23am
The real condescension in Democratic circles is the notion that people ought, by construction, vote their own economic self-interest as a matter principle. Getting the hind teat in the global economy is not ipso facto the most important thing in any persons life, particularly if they are getting by comfortably enough to still enjoy life. And, legend notwithstanding, most in this country do. The mistake, in my opinion, of Democrats who try talk about economics, is that they insist on pandering in the most foolish fashion. Does it never occur to anyone to say: "I'm not exactly like you, and we both know it. We both know that some occupations are going to pay more, and some less, but dammit, a good days' work by two breadwinners should be enough to keep a family in a home, with medical care, and food on the table. I'll work for policies that achieve that. We both know that people who seek power and influence are going to have more of it than those that seek only to take care of their family and neighborhood, and enjoy life a little, but we expect those people to do so honorably. And yes, we do both resent it when the rich and powerful use their position instead to stack the system in their favor against the public interest, and pilfer government and business coffers to the tune of hundreds of millions, year in and year out. I'll work to make sure that equal opportunity doesn't include the opportunity to abuse the system. We all know that different people believe differently, and have different ultimate values, and we can life with that, but we expect reciprocal tolerance and respect for our views and lifestyle choices, from those we disagree with. I won't dismiss your views, and the facts as you see them, just because I disagree with them - you'll see them represented in my deliberations, because I know we've both got something to learn from each other. All I ask in return is that you not dismiss what I bring to the table, just because your parents' and experience have taught you a little differently than mine have taught me."
-
April 19, 2008 at 10:26am
The first paragraph of your column showed exactly how clueless you are. In it, you stated, "...had he dwelt for any extended time among the working class, would be lucky to escape without his underwear being yanked up over his ears." Yes, that's exactly what "working class" people do! They yank people's underwear up over their ears! Aren't they quaint! Aren't they amusing! And Peggy Noonan's column, which shows some respect for the values these folks tend to embrace, reminds you of "Guatemalan peasant women". And yet, you wonder why many won't vote for Democrats. or read the New Republic. Duh.
- Charles Arnold
April 19, 2008 at 10:33am
The attack on George Will isn't legitimate. He never bases his arguments on his own personal lifestyle or position in sociey. You won't find a statement from one of his columns that is condescending towards some economic class of people (such as "working people").
- Daniel J. Smith
April 19, 2008 at 10:37am
Folks, Seriously; does it occur to you that the problem is that Democrats promise to help the poor and middle income and are so corrupt in terms of process that they only make things worse ... teachers unions, public housing projects, anti-religiosity (which is a cause of social and civil deterioration), etc. The Democrats policies boil down to paying people to vote for them and intelligent middle income people see that. If Democrats effectiveness matched their rhetoric they'd win every election. Instead they sometimes manage to pay the right people (cleverly disguised as "help" for the poor) enough to get elected. TOH
- The Objective Historian
April 19, 2008 at 10:43am
You write like the petulant child that you are. Your candidate, B. Hussein Obama, will win about 10 states because he is a racist and hangs out with racists. Pretty simple really. Good luck trying to change the subject....it won't work. He is what he is.
- Robin
April 19, 2008 at 10:50am
True of False? Was Hillary Clinton Fired from Watergate Investigation for Unethical Misconduct and Then Lying About It? . Did her boss in the Watergate investigation fire her, refuse to give her a letter of recommendation and said she was a liar who did highly unethical things? . Does her boss say that she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality, that she was an unethical and dishonest lawyer; that he should have reported her to the bar association for disciplinary action; that she wrote a fraudulent legal memorandum which if submitted to a judge would have gotten her disbarred; and that he could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust? . Check it out for yourself at the websites below, what do you think? . http://www.jzeifman.com/ http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut . If it is not true, wouldn't the Clintons' have shut these sites down? .
- swuzy
April 19, 2008 at 10:55am
Last point: People want guns to protect themselves from generation after generation of punks, urban, suburban, and rural, produced by Democratic educational, social and economic programs. USAers don't want to be "messed with" and don't want their families assualted and won't bow to fellow-citizen agressors like Europeans. That people want guns for hunting is laughable. They want to defend themselves from the enemy-within. And as NWA sings, "911 is a joke." This said with great respect for dedicated law enforcement. Democrats don't even blame criminals where they are rarely caught; it's society and those with something to steal must "tolerate" it until the coming utopia. Republicans would give victims a fighting chance. There are consequences in terms of lives lost to gun violence, but then there are consequences to 65 mph speed limits, too. But for some reason Democrats choose authority over civil liberties here whereas merely having cameras in place in public places to prevent violence, gun and otherwise, is some kind of Orwellian horror. Give Main Street some credit for seeing through your balderash, as I'd put it. TOH
- The Objective Historian
April 19, 2008 at 10:56am
I just don't understand why anyone would think that voting republican instead of democrat is against your own self interest. I live in rural SC. People here voter Repub. about 70%. The reason is their own economic interest. There are tons and tons of small business owners here doing contract blue collar work. The reason they vote republican is because the democrats want to tax the life out of them. The "tax the rich" idea just kills small business and contract employees who claim all business income as personal income. The fact that they keep putting these snobs up for election just makes us dislike them on a personal level. Economically we have our heads on straight.
- Saving Freak
April 19, 2008 at 11:10am
Talk about bitter.
- theduke
April 19, 2008 at 11:26am
Great article, Chait! Good logical arguments rebutting some half-truths but I disagree on some points. Yes, it may be okay to vote your values or culture rather than your wallet, and yes, the elite manipulate the masses. But the underlying message is materialism rather than what you enjoy. Now you may respond that those poor schmucks who were born in a factory town or were lucky to get to a technical college if that, don't get it like those who drink Perrier and read Dostayevsky. But they make and are happy in their world. To them, a Porsche is foolish and not functional compared to a pickup truck. Guns are for hunting and protection rather than something to be protected from, despite Kerry's Dukakis-in-the- tank attempt to act like a hunter or Gore's anti-gun record coming home to roost as he couldn't carry his home state because of his record, therby giving us a Florida debacle. Some don't get it that some believe their faith rather than those who see it as secondary, or as a hobby or something to be disdained or viewed as anti-intellectual or anti-rationality. Yes, some live not the best economically but they have bought into the honor of work and hard work ethic rather than the government wants go give you something mentality. It is this type that takes the don't tread on me stance while others snobbishly condescend to their values and lifestyle while realizing that this has lost the votes they believe they should be receiving. Look to the Book of Luke [holding your nose if necessary] and contrast the one in the temple asking for mercy as a sinner and the other, impressed with himself and thanking the Lord that he is not like the rest. This simple parable might be worth volumes of journalistic columns, millions of dollars in spinmeister advice, and tons of angst that expands elitist condescension and handwringing exponentially in explaining how Americans vote rather than how we think they should vote.
- Will Harkness
April 19, 2008 at 11:31am
Mr Chiat, can you write a column without reverting to name calling? It doesn't serve you well.
- r[pd789&omcast.net
April 19, 2008 at 11:33am
I read Will's column and thought he was right on, perceptive, and crisply stated too. I read yours and it seemed wandering and arm-flinging, without serious analysis, reactive.
- William M Goetsch
April 19, 2008 at 11:38am
"Sorry, did that sound condescending?" Nah, it sounded like the whining one would hear when a caffe latte is spilled on a Beemer's GPS and the driver discovers that he is in the wrong nighborhood.
- CVW
April 19, 2008 at 11:44am
Chait is a 'jerk', always was and always will be. Firt he calls George Will names so I followed Chait's article lead and call him a 'jerk' first. No further commentary is necessary.
- Betty Ann
April 19, 2008 at 12:04pm
So, I guess you missed the part in the ABC degate that discussed the dems tax programs? If Obama really understood what he was talking about, we are all in for a huge tax increase..
- deanne
April 19, 2008 at 12:12pm
This article would have been more effective without the ad hominem attacks against George Will. Without these comments, the article is a thoughtful piece. With them, it comes off as playground taunting.
- CNic
April 19, 2008 at 12:13pm
I don't understand. Are we saying that if you strive to better yourself and go to an Ivy you are forever stained by it? If someone rises up and accomplishes something by education or economic achievement that is to be hailed - whether they are liberal or conservative. We have set positions so entrenched and inflexible that its just plain crazy. No one stays the same once they are given the opportunity for education - otherwise there would be no point in doing it. Vive le difference.
- John K
April 19, 2008 at 12:14pm
You must be kidding, right? Since when is left-wing Democrat economic policy good for anyone? Sorry, but the premise is flawed. More government, more taxes, more regulation, less freedom are in nobody's self-interest. To the left we're all just innocent victims of unfettered capitalism and evil greedy big oil, big pharma, big business, and we need to be saved by government and its minions who will tell us what is good for us. No thanks.
- Mike D'Virgilio
April 19, 2008 at 12:29pm
Chait: "But nobody's challenging the validity of caring more about your religion, or even your right to hunt, than your income. The objection is whether it makes sense to vote on that basis." Sure, so let's ask them to vote on issues they care less about than others. Damn, that's brilliant. And in case you can't figure it out, these blue-collar workers DO see the gov't acting in ways that are inconsistent with their values vis a vis religion, guns, and the like. Will nailed it. And to point out that he is not exactly a working-class stiff is completely irrelevant. It's the attitude he has towards the values of the blue-collar folks that matters. He thinks it's part of why America's great. Chait and company think there is something wrong with them - and it drips from nearly every sentence, no matter how energetic the effort to disguise it.
- Robert
April 19, 2008 at 12:36pm
Consider the description of George Will: wealthy, pretentious, bow tie wearing, son of a professor, a man who grew up in a University town, Anglophilic fop with a reserved table at a French restaurant. Chait describes the typical liberal intellectual enjoys hectoring the world on morality, equality (except as the concept effects affirmative action programs) and need to help the poor.
- Octavian
April 19, 2008 at 12:46pm
WAAHHHHHHHH!
- Deane
April 19, 2008 at 1:07pm
If Obama meant what you stated in your article, why didn't he present it that way, when asked to explain what he meant. His answers have been awkward, at best. Also, Obama included in a clearly negative comment illegal alien connotation in the speech. He is living with his own handling of the situation. McCain and company will be hanging it around his neck. It won't play well in Kansas.
- planetbob
April 19, 2008 at 1:29pm
I think Jonathan is feeling pretty proud of himself for taking some whacks at that elitist George Will--who indeed is one--but at_david has a pretty good explanation of why Republicans keep cleaning Democrats' clocks come election time. I personally think it would be healthy for Democrats to win the White House more often. But as one of the first steps in that process, I'd recommend Democrats take all their copies of "What's the Matter with Kansas" and burn them in a big bonfire.
- Doug S.
April 19, 2008 at 1:35pm
Keep congratulating yourself on this. I'm sure someone thought up the idea of Dukakis in a tank and there was some backslapping going on then. What a great idea! Problem is that the people that see this as a clear slight, if not outrage, going to think? Get the swift-boats ready. People aren't voting for Will (most of them don't read him anyway) but Kansas will be deciding for or against Obama. Can't believe that the Dems are self destructing. You trash Hillary, with the clear connection to the last (largely successful, though baggage ridden) Dem president and send up an untested 3rd year senator. What do you really think the outcome is going to be? Kick yourselves now, why wait for November.
- planetbob
April 19, 2008 at 1:38pm
Sorry, Jonathan, but you do sound condescending..... That's the rub.....when one analyzes and judges that is what happens.....it's a catch-22. George Will does it, you do it.
- Debalee
April 19, 2008 at 2:06pm
Any other Blue Collars Whites POed that some Elitists in the Media are demanding we be offended by Senator Obama's gaffe? I'm tired of Elitist Republicans thinking they can manipulate me into voting for them with some BS propaganda about their FAKE Family Values and guns (I can't think of a single gun law that ever impeded my hunting) Frankly I'm fed up with the High Horse Republican Elitists thinking I'm dumb enough to fall for their patronizing BS
- John Russell
April 19, 2008 at 2:07pm
Those stupid hicks! Why won't they sell their souls, their families and their country for a free sandwich?
- Jim
April 19, 2008 at 2:32pm
I hope those poor, white , working class people understand that the reason they haven't had a job in twenty five years, according to Obama, are due to left wing policies. Big labor, environmentalists, and high corporate tax rates are why business has dried up in the rust belt.
- B Smith
April 19, 2008 at 2:49pm
Well, I disagree. What Senator Obama did was to presume to know the minds of a particular group of people, which may be fine for a professor or a sociologist, but not quite the quality I'd care to see in a President. I'd prefer it if he or she thought that we, the people, knew our own minds. It's not so much about condescension as it is about a certain attitude toward governance. The little people need to be dissected and understood and manipulated; we're just subjects of a grand study and here are the results! It's not government of the people; it's government of the people who think they know the people. Ugh. I know all politicans do this and it's not an attitude confined to the left. It is, however, deeply irritating when wrapped up in Senator Obama's pretensions. Look, at least pretend to be concerned with our little issues, sir, instead of telling us what you think our issues should be.
- Anon
April 19, 2008 at 3:31pm
"Thus Obama's attempts to highlight his (relative) lack of wealth did not win him any points..." Huh? Whose relatives we talkin' 'bout? This from CBS/AP, and you can't get it from straighter shooters nowhere, no-how... "AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, made $4.2 million last year...." Let's just spit it out... Barrack Obama is John Kerry, only better....
- Howard
April 19, 2008 at 4:30pm
What Senator Obama should have said is that average Americans have every right in the world to be bitter because their government has been bought and paid for by multinational corporations and big business and continues actively to work toward sending their jobs to foreign countries, while the politicians from both parties twiddle their thumbs and continue to reap those campaign contributions and other perks of office supplied by their super-rich "constituents." When Democrats start suporting policies which benefit instead of undermine average Americans those average Americans will be voting Democratic again.
- Ed Szewczyk
April 19, 2008 at 4:35pm
1) A lot of leftists have fantasized in print about "rounding up the guns" and getting them out of people's hands - they can borrow a gun from the library when they want to hunt. Country people have figured this out - elitist liberals in cities have no use for guns as they can enforce their rights and desires by means of lawyers. Some of these white working class people even know folks in Europe who are defenseless against Muslim gangs, rapists, etc. where the liberal elite will not use police power to protect the disarmed populace. No-go zones are everywhere, and dozens of cars burn nightly; the victims are people exactly like them, and they're even emigrating to America. Country people don't think city liberals will protect them either, and they're probably right. City liberals have media which deliberately stay miles away from this topic. 2) City and academic liberals don't realize that values ARE economics to the people in question here. They talk about not being able to afford to be liberal. They can't afford organic; they can't afford good (private) schools, but have to attend public schools whose teachers are union and thus totally unresponsive; with three kids they are forced to buy an SUV because of nanny-state carseat laws; and worst of all, all those minority groups get preference over them in college admissions, scholarships, special programs, and other ways to improve the life of their kids. If these people's kids go off the reservation sexually or in terms of any kind of "liberation", their economic status is very likely to tank - these people have all seen it happen, and they are scared to death that their kids will go this route. Rich liberal kids can fool around for a few years and still turn out OK; working class kids can't. They've got to stay on the straight and narrow to make it. Obama is the personification of everything that's wrong with these people's lives - a well-off minority kid getting all the breaks, whose job is "community activist", all the while talking about how faulty America is and how mean its people are. He and Michelle could at least express their thanks for such good luck, but instead they tell the working people that in effect it's all their own fault they don't succeed, stupidly clinging to God and guns and racism, unlike more successful people. Sheesh!
- James Richman
April 19, 2008 at 4:50pm
Obama made the point that people cling to (as distinct from enjoy having, enjoying, following) religion and traditions like hunting, their families and communities in times of uncertainty when politics has failed them. This is pretty much human nature. Horribledictu.com
- Cam
April 19, 2008 at 5:46pm
All of which shows how much Barack screwed up. When even George Will can rightly trash you for being an elitist, you've really stepped in it. :-)
- Yasha
April 19, 2008 at 6:04pm
Chait is a little jealous of Mr. Will in my opinion.
- biscuits
April 19, 2008 at 6:11pm
Brilliant Jonathan--vastly the clearest explanation I have seen. Thanks for piping up.
- Chris Dornan
April 19, 2008 at 6:13pm
Mr. Chait's only real mistake is his assertion that when Republicans state their support of "God and guns," they are being as mendacious as Democrats. Thus, he belittles the statements of Noonan, Wills, et al. because he firmly believes they simply can't be saying what they really feel. He is so stuck in the Dem way of thinking he can't conceive that those sentiments can be genuine. He is wrong. And in being wrong in that one thing, his entire premise falls apart. His claim that the Dems don't support draconian gun control is laughable, but then, where else could he go? Heh. That's why all those cities with gun bans are run by Republicans, right?
- billo
April 19, 2008 at 6:28pm
A pleasure to read.
- John
April 19, 2008 at 6:37pm
"flogging the servants" brought a chuckle. And Obama is right: The American public does need to become much better educated. If elitism means not voting against your own best interests, call me a hyper snob. Paging poor Nash McC--- who was cynically exploited by ABC and for her so-called effort has now been further reduced to a national punchline. I don't want another phony salt of the earth ninny in the WH after these last 8 years. Bring on the intellectual elites big time, baby, and throw in some real common sense too. And some impressive political skills. George Will is a howling tool. And, shockingly,I don't give a rat's ass about bowling, orange juice, flag pins, or, gasp, the Weather Underground oldies but goodies scene.
- charlotte
April 19, 2008 at 6:52pm
Thanks, Jonathan, for hipping us to what conservatives really care about: "...conservatives routinely express their fury that a majority of Jews stubbornly flout their own "self-interest" ... and vote Democratic." In all my conversations with fellow-conservatives, I missed that one.
-
April 19, 2008 at 7:10pm
Re cthulhu2008: Hitler committed wide-ranging purges of liberals and leftists. Sorry, the Nazis were socialist in name only, regardless of your poorly-chosen anecdote (LvM fled due to Jewish ancestry, not due to a particular libertarian animus on the part of Hitler). Try again.
- JohnBoy
April 19, 2008 at 7:19pm
Chait makes many good points, but he trivializes and distorts the Will column, which was less a faux declaration of outrage over Obama's comments than a historical account of the readiness of the left to see the refusal of part of the working class to support the left as evidence of the working class's stupidity, hang-ups, docility, receptivity to persuasion, etc.
- Chris
April 19, 2008 at 7:33pm
Where did this myth that Democrats can give us a better economy than Republicans? Does anyone remember Jimmy Cater? 10% unemployment. 15% inflation. 15% mortgage rates. Gas shortages and gas lines. Gas prices are so high because environmental terrorist Democrates won't allow us to drill or build refineries. Giving mortages to high risk homwowner wannabees is a liberal concept. Out side of that our economy is roaring. The Dems high tax policies will tank our economy. All voters who worry about the economy should run screaming from the Democrates.
- RA
April 19, 2008 at 7:44pm
This entire article is based on the assumption that Democratic economic policies are better for the working class than Republican economic policies. It ignores the possibility that working class Americans might agree with Republican economic policies and see those policies as better for them than Democratic economic policies. It's not inconceivable. The problem the Democratic party has lately is that they assume that working class folks would support Democratic policies if only they weren't distracted by religious or social issues. This isn't necessarily true except superficially - working class folks might want better health care (yay Democrats!) but might think that government involvement in health care is bad (yay Republicans). Working class folks might also not care so much if their _proportion_ of the tax burden is higher if their _actual_ taxes are lower, and if the alternative Democratic plan is to create a more "fair" tax system that also makes their _actual_ taxes higher. This article gives itself over to those assumptions 100%, and proceeds immediately to indignation. A proper, non-partisan analysis would examine the assumptions.
- phargle
April 19, 2008 at 8:42pm
elitism is a state of mind, not an economic state...the progressive elites are elitist because they view themselves as superior in intellect and morality because of their "care for the environment", "for the poor", and in the cases of college kids, their love for diverse music as long as its indie rock...a sense of supriority constitutes an elitist, not a bank statement. Whites who feel superior to blacks on the sole basis of race are elitists, the same as those who think that anyone who doubts the alleged human responsibility for global warming is a nut-job...just for opposing the "standard" and apparently only credible postition on the warming trends. Just because one walks his dog in the park, does not make him exempt from elitist charges...because if he feels he is better than his suburban driving neighbor, he is the true elitist.
- dougk
April 19, 2008 at 8:51pm
chait proves once again that the ivies know what's best...for just about everyone
- dw
April 19, 2008 at 9:28pm
"Sorry, did that sound condescending?" yes of course, but as a liberal that is a defining characteristic. The point is that liberals are not interested in using arguments to persuade anyone of anything. They are interested in making laws forcing us to do things in a way they have determined is best for us. it is about power over us about everything from the kind of light bulb we use to where we can smoke, what we can eat, and to which people we must lend a helping hand. And after they are showing all the rest us how much they care by mandating who is going to give what, they will pat themselves on the back for their magnanimity. Modern liberalism is not and never has been about individual thought, it is about groupthink and a lack of faith in people which manifests itself in the condescension that turns so many of us off.
- Gregory Ladd
April 19, 2008 at 10:59pm
"Sorry, did that sound condescending?" yes of course, but as a liberal that is a defining characteristic. The point is that liberals are not interested in using arguments to persuade anyone of anything. They are interested in making laws forcing us to do things in a way they have determined is best for us. It is about power over us about everything from the kind of light bulb we use to where we can smoke, what we can eat, and to which people we must lend a helping hand. And after they are done showing all the rest us how much they care by mandating who is going to give what, they will pat themselves on the back for their magnanimity. Liberalism is not and never has been about individual thought, it is about groupthink and yes, a lack of faith in people which manifests itself in the condescension that turns so many of us off.
- Greg Ladd
April 19, 2008 at 11:01pm
Like the Marxists, Frank wishes the working class defined themselves exclusively as economic units.
-
April 19, 2008 at 11:07pm
I wrote this post before reading the excellent remarks of at_david and Andy Moursund. "Elitism" in the pejorative sense is not about failing to share the tastes of working class. I enjoy foreign food, speak several languages, and like to vacation in Europe. But unlike Barack Obama I don't look down on the working class in Pennsylvania. On the contrary I respect them for their work ethic and their love of family and country. I think liberals have more to learn from the working people than the other way round. Chait's attempt at a "you too" gotcha of the Republicans on this issue of snobbery misses the mark. Republicans of all classes don’t look down on the social values of the working class. Most often they share those values. Contrary to Thomas Franks, working class Americans for the most part don't want to live under European style socialism. They have too much pride and self-respect to want government to take over the role that family and community play in their lives. The policies advocated by the Democrats, are bad for the working class, and the workers for the most part know it. The working classes are "deluded" on one point, and that is that their belief that free trade harms them. The decline in employment in the steel industry for example is not due to competition from that manufacturing powerhouse, Mexico. It is due mainly to the fact that modern technology has made it possible to manufacture steel with far fewer workers. (For further defense of free trade I refer the reader to the writings of 99% of professional economists of both Democratic and Republican registration.) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both supported free trade in the past. Their current espousal of protectionism is cynical and dishonest. It's no accident that the only successful Democratic president since Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, borrowed many of his policies from the right. Welfare reform, NAFTA, and a balanced budget - no wonder Clinton called himself an "Eisenhower Republican". The protectionism and high taxes advocated by the Democrats today are a prescription for decline in the US standard of living, especially for the workers the Democrats claim they want to help.
-
April 19, 2008 at 11:51pm
Where have you been all my life? Count me as your newest fan....
- Arun Swamy
April 20, 2008 at 12:36am
Yeah, it did.
- Benjamin Munda
April 20, 2008 at 1:26am
Will is an elitist because he has graduate degrees? No. Elitist is looking down your nose at people who don't share your advantages. Something Obama does and Will does not. Writing as I do from a gun-toting God worshipping bastion of conservatism in central Texas I can tell you that if George Will showed up here for the fourth of July picnic in the park he would be declared an honorary object of reverence. Chait would receive the wedgie.
- Arvin Regency
April 20, 2008 at 1:35am
"A lot of the Jewish thing comes from the Holocaust. To this day many Jews make the egregious error of thinking Hitler was of the "right" and his enemies were socialists." Hitlers enemies were communists and was backed by those sectors of German society that were most afraid of it. Trying to pigeon hole Hitler into some sort of contemporary American idea of what passes for liberal or conservative is just silly. Realistically Jewish people in America are a well educated urban/suburban middle class minority with deep connections to the Northern Democratic party with has represented their interests for over 100 years. Further they have direct personal experience with conservative (in)sensibilities towards race and religion. And while it is true that Jewish people can and often are culturally conservative, it doesn't fit into the traditional WASP or Southern conservative mold very well either. If anything Holocaust just makes them even more suspicious of American conservatism.
- Gibbon1
April 20, 2008 at 1:54am
David: No sh!t!!! I get sick of all this whiny cr@p from the so-called-white-working-class. I'm white, 46, been working like a dog all mt life, since I was nine. All Billary Clinton had to do is start telling these automaton that, "You have been slighted by an elitist! He dared say something about guns! He dared say something about religion! He must be talking down to you!!!" Billary had to tell you how outraged you should be. And like the people that have to be told how to feel, you sucked it up like Monica with a cigar. Billary is playing you folks like a fiddle. Much like Bush has done over the last 8 years. Much like McBush IS going to play a good chunk of you so-called "white working class". That's why I don't feel as much outrage as many do about the unbelievable Constitutional abuses of the last 8 years. Yea... that's right! The Constitution that Pennsylvania is so proud of allowing that gutless, draft-dodging, cocaine abusing, (that he refused to admit publicly), drunk driver wiped his @ss on for all these years. It's ignorant people, some of which just happen to be "white working class" folks that have done this to us. And it is a democracy, so we got we deserved. Even in 2000, when in reality Bush lost, the American people are to blame. If there was enough outrage over the spitting in the face of our forefathers, it wouldn't have happened. I'm speaking to the people that still can be shamed enough to stop and admit that maybe they made a mistake. Most won't for the same reason they voted for that idiot in the first place. Not enough self respect to do the right thing, only to follow their good ol' boys down the drain. I do call'em stupid and ignorant, it's the truth! If you have to have someone tell you that you're outraged, maybe you have other more serious problems. Where is your outrage at Bush for all the heartache and sadness he's brought to this country? Where is your outrage that the grandkids/great grandkids of yours, and your children may be screwed with no way out??? If this doesn't outrage you in some fashion, well I just feel sorry for you... and your grandkids/great grandkids. Someone has too, for you're to busy now lockstepping to the people that will control you. WAKE UP AND THINK!!!!!!!!
- Harry Moyer
April 20, 2008 at 2:19am
David: No sh!t!!! I get sick of all this whiny cr@p from the so-called-white-working-class. I'm white, 46, been working like a dog all mt life, since I was nine. All Billary Clinton had to do is start telling these automaton that, "You have been slighted by an elitist! He dared say something about guns! He dared say something about religion! He must be talking down to you!!!" Billary had to tell you how outraged you should be. And like the people that have to be told how to feel, you sucked it up like Monica with a cigar. Billary is playing you folks like a fiddle. Much like Bush has done over the last 8 years. Much like McBush IS going to play a good chunk of you so-called "white working class". That's why I don't feel as much outrage as many do about the unbelievable Constitutional abuses of the last 8 years. Yea... that's right! The Constitution that Pennsylvania is so proud of allowing that gutless, draft-dodging, cocaine abusing, (that he refused to admit publicly), drunk driver wiped his @ss on for all these years. It's ignorant people, some of which just happen to be "white working class" folks that have done this to us. And it is a democracy, so we got we deserved. Even in 2000, when in reality Bush lost, the American people are to blame. If there was enough outrage over the spitting in the face of our forefathers, it wouldn't have happened. I'm speaking to the people that still can be shamed enough to stop and admit that maybe they made a mistake. Most won't for the same reason they voted for that idiot in the first place. Not enough self respect to do the right thing, only to follow their good ol' boys down the drain. I do call'em stupid and ignorant, it's the truth! If you have to have someone tell you that you're outraged, maybe you have other more serious problems. Where is your outrage at Bush for all the heartache and sadness he's brought to this country? Where is your outrage that the grandkids/great grandkids of yours, and your children may be screwed with no way out??? If this doesn't outrage you in some fashion, well I just feel sorry for you... and your grandkids/great grandkids. Someone has too, for you're to busy now lockstepping to the people that will control you. WAKE UP AND THINK!!!!!!!!
- Harry Moyer
April 20, 2008 at 2:19am
Yo, stool for brains, he didn't just as you so innocently put it "call white working class bitter and say they have a fetish for firearms" Painting with his broad brush, he called them all racists. I guess you missed that part - "antipathy for anyone not like them". And this coming from someone whose "mentor and spiritual advisor" is the reverend wright. Have you no shame Mr Obama? A man who exposed his children to racist, anti-semitic, anti-white, anti-american venom on a weekly basis - and now we should trust his judgment. Had Hillary or McCain enrolled their kids in a sunday school run by david duke, what would have been the response? A political crucifiction with Mr Chait among others leading the charge. And rightly so.
- Gary
April 20, 2008 at 2:21am
I'm having trouble finding the article at Slate, but the polling of Pennsylvanians specifically over the comments showed that around 60% of Pennsylvanians agreed more with Obama's "bitter" comment than with Clinton's argument against it. This controversy is mostly bow-tie wearers trying to gain street cred.
- Yoyo
April 20, 2008 at 2:23am
"Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on." Do the Democratic Party's programs really line up so perfectly with the economic interests of these small town voters? These popular social programs you talk about are very often additional state spending on wage and benefit packages for more and more state employees. Or they are programs targeted at the politically influential urban poor like housing and transportation subsidies. You can spin "cling" and guns, church, and anti-immigration all you want. The secular, anti-religion, gun control, pro illegal immigrant/future Dem voters modern day Democratic Party is all too transparent to small town Americans. The "Kansas" book was the logical descendant to the maniacal "worker student alliance" drivel of 60's radicals. You weren't condescending - that would sort of imply some superiority of intelligence. Like Obama, you were just wrong. You have way too little understanding of the subject matter. As many have tried to tell you - the rubes are way smarter than you think. So - take this article and shove it.
- Michael Hanrahan
April 20, 2008 at 2:28am
Many good points eloquently stated, as usual, by Chait, but this piece still falls somewhat flat for me due to the complete refusal of the the Party of the Working Man to break the stranglehold of the identity-politics lobby and the NEA on progress re. schools reform, Mexico/immigration, and affirmative action in college admissions. Of course George WIll doesn't give a flying hoot about stopping our importation of a second underclass that's cutting the legs out from under social services and living wages for low-end Americans. Does anyone in our party care?
- teplukhin2you
April 20, 2008 at 3:02am
yes thanks for this fully open and none partisan artical.... by the way thats sarcasim. could you have made republicans look a little more evil? or maybe said that the demicrats dont want to raise taxes that all classes will pay like social security and medical for more ilegal imigrants(pardon my spelling). please at least try a little to hide the side you suport. hide
- me
April 20, 2008 at 3:04am
Good article. But Jonathan, you do write as if the blue-collar whites are sort of passive partners in this state of affairs. In fact they've eagerly embraced victim status, to an extent that reminds me of being at U.C. Santa Cruz in 1990. Like the academic woman in color in my college days, many blue-collar whites work quite hard to find the slightest thing to be offended at. A tendency enthusiastically encouraged by both Republicans and the mainstream media. As a Californian (living 30 miles from San Francisco, no less), I'm certainly familiar with the rest of the country chortling at my state and our values. The difference is that Californians don't whine about every slight, real and imagined, in the way that folks like at_david did in comment #28. Having put up with all that crap from the left during the early '90s, I can't really express how frustrating it is to have to put up with all of it again from the right today.
- Dave in California
April 20, 2008 at 3:08am
The central meaning of what Obama said, and what he and his apologists have subsequently endeavored to distort or deny, is that placing great importance on gun rights, religion, or the problem of illegal immigration is pathological. He, in line with the thinking of the hard left, essentially denies that there could be legitimate opposition to his own beliefs in these areas, that is, opposition based upon sound reasoning. Far from novel, this is simply the familiar leftist tactic of attempting to avoid subjecting their social policies to honest debate. And by the way, if Obama wants to reach out to people who appear to be bitter, are "clinging" to religion and to antipathy to people different from themselves, he doesn't need to go all the way to Pennsylvannia to do so. He simply needs to go to church.
- Frank LeGeros
April 20, 2008 at 3:25am
Because Nietzsche was wrong, dumbass.
- Dimslie
April 20, 2008 at 3:30am
You know, it's fun reading the same comments on any article that brings up Obama now. Wright is a racist bigoted pastor who hates America, even though he served as a Marine? Check. Obama things people cling to religion and guns because he's out of touch with "real people"... much moreso than, say Bill O Reilly, who I'm sure goes to the bar each weekend? Check. Obama's connection to slumlord Rezko or Weather Underground member Bill Ayers immediately makes him unqualified to be President, because he knows someone who did bad things? Wait, no check? Cmon people, you're slacking.
- LnGrrrR
April 20, 2008 at 4:09am
Your article was interesting. However, you are making the assumption that Obama's economic policy will benefit working class people. This is not the case. You fail to realize that people in rural America work hard for their money to buy guns and give to God (churches). They also prefer to keep as much as that money as possible. It is unfortunate Obama is a redistribution and protectionist Democrat, unlike pro-growth President Clinton. Lower taxes may indeed be better for the super rich, the growth they create is good for everyone.
- Soon to be GRAd
April 20, 2008 at 4:25am
If someone dislikes Obama, then this is just another reason to. If you are really interested in finding out more about him, I recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFmV6j6ULEc&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/19/obama-in-2004-on-guns-god-and-democrats/
- ryan
April 20, 2008 at 5:11am
Viva Chait, Brilliant article. Obama's words were in the right place. I took the core message as that many blue collar whites in Pennsyvania and in the Midwest are bitter over the fact that their 20th century jobs are not coming back in the 21st century global economy. True statement. That is a fundamental reality. The only anti-American aspect of all this is O"Reilly and Hannity playing the race card. Over and over again they play the race card. They shamelessly make their money by dividing up Americans on race, ethnicty and religion. Nonetheless, I suspect 40% of Hispanics Americans will end up voting for McCain (absent a xenphobe VP choice). Free trade with LatAm and strong intelligence and military aid to our friends like Mexico and Colombia are of mutual national security benefits. I suspect many Jewish Americans are also going to vote for McCain (especially if Lieberman is on the ticket) because they know that our enemies are approaching us with their knives drawn. Not only can Israel be toast within one hour, we can become a second rate nation within a generation. Sometimes one can't walk away from a fight whether with Iran or Venezuela. May God bless and keep America
-
April 20, 2008 at 6:32am
No, that didn't sound condescending! It sounded like the typical, angry, liberal noise you hear occasionally. Your work is like a trash truck, in the back alley, making noise and bothering me. Like all reasonable people, I just shut the window on you, so that I don't have to hear your irritating noise (or smell you at work). Someone has to do this work, who better than a middle-class liberal like yourself. I wonder how Obama feels about your bitterness and empty rage. Also, by the way, George Will has more credibility than you indicate in your rant.
- John Crowley
April 20, 2008 at 7:47am
"Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on." This is just flat wrong. When you lower taxes for the wealthy, the rich end up paying a higher portion of overall taxes. When you lower the upper tax rates you're only lowering the percentage of income paid by the upper class. The nominal amounts paid out by every class after tax cuts are put through show that the upper class pays a higher overall percentage of all gov't revenues. This happens every singe time tax cuts go through (1920s, 1960s, 1980s and 2000s).
- Dustin
April 20, 2008 at 7:55am
The difference bewteen Mr. Will and the far left is that Will at least understands working class people. Furthermore the hypocrisy is not that George Will has two degrees and likes French food, it is that the left in this country claims to "help" working class people but feel they are better than them. Hence elitist.
-
April 20, 2008 at 8:04am
The difference bewteen Mr. Will and the far left is that Will at least understands working class people. Furthermore the hypocrisy is not that George Will has two degrees and likes French food, it is that the left in this country claims to "help" working class people but feel they are better than them. Hence elitist.
-
April 20, 2008 at 8:04am
The working class actually likes America, that is why they are trending Republican.
- Red State
April 20, 2008 at 8:13am
Well if that ain't a fop caling a fop fop.
- Chuck
April 20, 2008 at 8:49am
So Chait and other progressives don't understand that the political choices made by downscale voters represent personal values choices, and that the people so sneeringly condescended to put their values concerns before economic ones. This lack of understanding is not at all surprising; a sort of color-blindness that is a genetic defect carried by the DNA of Progressivism.
- cab404
April 20, 2008 at 9:15am
Has anyone looked at a precinct map recently? Anyone want to know who is actually voting Republican? I can only speak about what I know, but what I know is this. I volunteered for the Democratic party in heavily Republican upstate South Carolina. Poor working-class whites aren't the ones who are voting Republican. They tend to split their tickets. It is affluent, suburban whites who are voting Republican. The reason that they vote Republican is because they no longer have to worry about the "pocketbook" issues, but can worry about the "social issues" instead. Add to this mix wealthy northerners who are moving to the area. They voted Republican up there and they are voting Republican down here. The GOP in the South is as much, if not more, the party of Newt Gingrich than it is the party of Strom Thurmond. The Democrats problem is that the liberal wing of the party sees working class whites as the enemy, not as swing voters. That's not a good way to win elections. (White guilt keeps them from saying the same things about working class black/hispanic voters and Republican tolerance of white racism keeps black/hispanic voters voting Democratic.)
- Jim
April 20, 2008 at 9:32am
"There are, after all, stark differences between the two parties on economic matters. Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on. Democrats, on the other hand, have no plans to keep anybody from attending church or hunting". Chait is a true genius. In the above key quote from his article, he states what should be the obvious. I wish others in the press had his smarts and the courage to speak this truth.
- Dallas Bob
April 20, 2008 at 12:32pm
pathetic questios and analyses get a pathetic response;it's like: why do we have to keep dealing with this s***?
- ccrider
April 20, 2008 at 3:37pm
Chait makes the assumption that Obama could not have meant what he literally said in San Francisco as it is prima facie absurd. Depsite the many San Franciscans undoubtedly nodding their heads in agreement, Chait believes Obama must have meant only that small town whites do not vote their own economic interests, a mere manifestation of Thomas Frank's argument. Chait goes on to argue that it is perfectly legitimate to try and convince this class of people that their pocket books will improve if they vote Democratic. What Chait fails to understand is that even this Frankish like argument entertains two conceits: (1) it does not even pretend to argue how Democrats will make their lives better in the long run, it just takes this on faith; and (2) it assumes that these people would vote their self interest, i.e Democratic, if only they were reasonably well informed. The first assumption is just question begging and the second is refutted by the work of Arthur Brooks in his seminal work, "Who Really Cares?". Brooks instructs us that self-identified conservatives, controlled for income, are on average approximately three times more charitiable than their liberal counterparts. Thus if conservatives are on average less likely to consider only themselves with respect to charity, it stands to reason they will also be less selfish in the politcal arena. Put succinctly, the superior character of the conservative will make him or her less susceptible to the small minded appeals of both Frank and Chait.
- James Kodak
April 20, 2008 at 5:55pm
I apologize for being late to this party, but here are some comments on Jonathan Chait's post. 1. My comments are not about George Will Nothing I say should be interpreted as being in any way supportive of George Will, whom I agree is the "fop" that Jonathan Chait claims he is. Indeed, that is the charitable interpretation of this particular overachiever. 2. Is Chait subscribing to the Thomas Frank thesis? Did I miss something, or would it be a fair interpretation of Chait's piece to suggest that he seems to be accepting the essential truth of the Thomas Frank thesis in What's the Matter with Kansas?, namely, that lower income whites have more or less been tricked by Republican propaganda over the years to vote based on so called "values" issues and contrary to their economic interests? As Chait puts it, providing his interpretation of what he thinks Obama was saying: "He [Obama] proceeded to argue that, in the absence of plausible economic improvement, people in small towns will vote on the basis of those traditions that give their lives stability. This is not a controversial view among Democrats. Bill Clinton once said that Republicans "find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them"--a less respectful expression of the same analysis." I note in passing two things about this particular argument. First, there is the question begging word "plausible." Plausible to whom? To Chait? To Obama? To white working class people in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Second, the fact that the thesis may not be controversial among Democrats and even Bill Clinton may subscribe to it, tells us nothing about whether it is a correct thesis. And by the way, I do seem to recall that Clinton won his first presidential election under the banner of "It's the economy, stupid!", not under the banner of "It's about abortion, gay rights, and the general breakdown in our Christian values." 3. Is this a correct reading of what Obama thinks, i.e., does Obama himself subscribe to at least some ballpark version of the Frank thesis? Frankly I don't know the answer to that question with anything approaching absolute certainty. Though that appears to be a reasonable interpretation of what Obama was saying. Let me quickly add that I mean "reasonable" to me and it would seem to both Chait and the majority of people in this thread who have commented specifically on the issue. I invite anyone who doubts my characterization of the comments up to this point in the thread to go back and reread them carefully, and keep a tally of the obvious Frankistas, the probable Frankistas, the folks who don't appear to take a stand one way or another on the Frank thesis, and the anti- or at least doubting Frankistas. The only clear example of a doubting Frankista comment I could find was the following, which is itself a somewhat incomplete statement of the Bartels thesis. But OK. #24 Dark Heart "Whether working class whites have been trending GOP is not to be taken for granted...Ruy Texiera [sic] made a decent case. But, Larry Bartels found that the shift of non-college whites is almost entirely attributable to the demise of the formerly Democratic Solid South." My favorite Frankista testimonial – apart from Chait's, if I have interpreted him correctly – is #5, timteeter's, who says: "Please send a copy to Paul Krugman." Which conveniently brings me to my next point. 4. Is Frank correct? Paul Krugman, here and here, applying Bartels' data sets and analyses to Obama's San Francisco comments, has argued that Frank's thesis does not hold up in the face of, um, the data, and that, as a consequence, insofar as Obama was echoing the Frank thesis, Obama has provided a seriously flawed view of what it is that can reasonably be said to be driving white working class voting behavior. This is not, of course, to say that no white working class people fit the Frank model. Of course they do. But that's not the point when one is in the business of trying to attract votes in a particular demographic. Rational behavior would seem not to provide an analysis which may be in tune with what one's own (elitist?) intuitions tell one is the truth of the matter -- the data be damned – but instead to try to properly characterize the majority attitudes and behavior of a particular demographic in the light of the data. 5. Is Chait's analysis data based or intuition based? Krugman's argument is supported by some very sophisticated data and analyses built on that data. The data and the analyses, cited from Bartels and Andrew Gelman, are subject to verification and reinterpretation, of course, as always. But I missed any attempt on Chait's part to gainsay the Bartels/Gelman/Krugman analyses, let alone offer one scintilla of data which might seem to undermine the critique that Krugman offers of Obama's remarks based on these data and analyses. I did, however, read a lot of presupposing of things which we intuitively just know to be true – but, golly, which appear not to be true in the face of the data. 6. Is this a timing issue? It is possible that Jonathan Chait had not read Krugman's blog post of April 17 and column of April 18 before his own intuitively appealing – to many of the commenters in this thread -- but data free post of April 18? In which case he can be forgiven for not noting that there are some very respectable people out there, such as Paul Krugman, and Larry Bartels who would disagree with what he wrote in the above post – and who would argue that they have the data, and not just their George Will-like intuitions, to support their disagreement. (We'll give Chait a pass on the fact that the basic point – about the national electoral shift to Republicans over the past 30 years or so is pretty much accounted for in statistical terms by the shift that went on from the formerly Democratically Solid (and Racist) South to the Republican Solid (and still in extensive circles Racist) South -- is a familiar one from Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal, since that book was done well before Obama's recent comments and, therefore, might not be the ideal critical framework to bring to bear on these remarks.) 7. Is this the time for Jonathan Chait to have an Emily Littella moment? I would think that Jonathan Chait, if he wants to distinguish himself at all from that Anglophilic fop – and windbag -- George Will, who has never found a any data that went contrary to his ideological agenda that he couldn't insouciantly mischaracterize or simply ignore, would want to tell us at least now exactly why he disagrees with the Bartels/Krugman thesis. And maybe provide us with a bit of data rather than his own version of dangerously borderline windbaggery? I mean, doesn't Chait owe it to all of his fans in this thread who are praising his post as "great" and "excellent," possibly even worthy of a cult-like following, if I have correctly interpreted #15 emigdio (though I'll confess I may have missed some irony here) to avoid intentionally leading them off an intellectual cliff?
- billyblog
April 20, 2008 at 8:00pm
What is amazing about Obama is that he basically called the white working class voters of Pennsylvania racist, gun-toting, Jesus freaks and what happened as a result? His poll numbers went up.
- Duscany
April 21, 2008 at 2:35am
The white working class Obama speaks of isn't bitter per say, just abandoned by the democratic party it created. The further left the democrats drifted, the more the white working class aligned themselves with wealthy types that they naturally should have little in common with. The constant moral relativism, nannyism, political correctness, attacks on traditional values, patriotism, family structure, and guilt trips over having been born white, have completely separated them from their original political party, which because of their sheer numbers, causes the democrats to lose national elections. Obama will not win the white house.. Trust me..not because of racism, but because he's a typical modern liberal. Where liberals were once the champions of equality, fairness, and skeptical of government intentions, they now are skeptical of the people themselves. Anyone who refuses the dogma pill is a racist, sexist, homophobe hillbilly yahoo who needs to be packed off to a government reeducation camp (also known as a college campus) where hopefully they can be intellectually castrated and obsorbed into the great collective...Peace out my niggas
- johnnyonthespot
April 21, 2008 at 4:43am
"Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on." I realize that writing on a deadline is tough, but why does Chait always fall back on cheap, almost childish lines like this. Because his own view is simplistic, like that expressed in Thomas Frank's "Kansas"? Implicit in this is an assumption that "republicans" want to make others' life miserable. What idiotic tripe. One can disagree that republican policy prescriptions will benefit the public as a whole, as many do on these pages, without impugning the legitimate motives of those proposing them. But Chait's childish views, and those of an increasing proportion of TNR staff, from what I can see, are barely more sophisticated that the scribblings of KOS kids.
- ds111
April 21, 2008 at 12:01pm
I think you are right that what Obama said was insulting, yet it may not have hurt him because many Democrats apparently agree with him. Likewise, if he has said something insulting to people who are "pro-life", it may not hurt him in the Democratic primaries, but could cost him the general election. Liberals such as Thomas Frank make the mistake of thinking that economic issues are more important than issues of value, which they sometimes derisively call "wegde issues". The reality is that all important issues can divide people wheter social or economic. Democrats have their own values which in many cases are better than Republican values. What Democrats need to stop doing is thinking that economic issues are fundamentally more important than social issues. I believe that this was implicit in Obama's comments, and that this was a mistake. Although economic issues are more important to many people, there is probably an even larger number of people to whom social issues are more important, and it was clearly stupid of Obama to disrespect these people.
- ace
April 21, 2008 at 2:30pm
To Marvin, Why is it that you and Chait and other Obama zealots are continually finding yourself explaining what he meant? Is not the candidate capable of actually saying what he means? The old adage applies here, You know you're losing when you're busy explaining what you meant.
- David Atwater
April 21, 2008 at 3:06pm
George F Will may or may not be all that Chait proclaims and more, but he's not elitist. One can be rich and also one of the people if one doesn't feel superior to them. I can eat quiche and drink red wine and not be a snob. That's more than Osama can say. The dude walks around with his nose in the air and his eyes on some "far-off, distant horizon" as if to project some sort of appearance that he's looking to the second golden age that he will bring about as soon as he's elected. What a load of horseshit. Grown adults, being sold Uncle Jack's cure-all panacea. And they're all lapping it up.
- JWL2672
April 21, 2008 at 3:20pm
I think it's ludicrous that any of us Washingtonians (or anyone for that matter) to attempt to speak for a group as diverse as "lower-class white males" or even "lower-class white males from Pennsylvania who vote Republican." Obama's comments were ill-considered, easy to misinterpret, and, yes, offensive. The conservative media establishment's and Hillary Clinton's obsession with the comment is also pretty laughable. But this article merely perpetuates the controversy while providing no substantive information on the candidates, their platforms, or the supposed "constituents" that were offended. Pointless finger-pointing and blog-bating is the problem, and this article is a part of that. Jonathan Chait, next time do let it go and I'll have more respect for you.
- DPC
April 21, 2008 at 3:44pm
I'd ask if TNR has a bad case of concern-trollitis, but there doesn't seem to be much else here, so I can only assume that this is their readership. Who knew George Will was such a salt-of -the-earth common man, and that so many can't stand the thought of someone calling him out on his elitist bullshit.
- strangely enough
April 22, 2008 at 3:05pm
I always love reading the comments to articles. Given the overall subject of the article -- elitism -- it almost pains me to note that there were so very few misspellings and ungrammaticals. Seems suspiciously elitist to me. Also, this from Henry, posted early on, was terrific: But George Will loves baseball. That is the intelligentsia's gateway drug to the common man.
- SamCVG
April 23, 2008 at 5:03pm
Of course... chait omits the "antipathy," part of Obama's little SF tea-party speech... his kind will say and do anything to relieve themselves of their white liberal guilt. Good thing is that most of us 'typical' white people have things 'bred into' us, like not wanting to bend over and take it in the ass.
- anon-e-mouse
April 23, 2008 at 10:44pm
Dear idjut: You do not speak for any other people than yourself. You certainly do not think for EVEN yourself. G. Will does not reflect middle class values. Wearing a bow tie is only eccentric, not middle class. Raising taxes has consistently been done by Repubs(example, Bush 1) Gun Control does NOT mean gun elimination, it IS favored by the MAJORITY of citizens, however. Instead of flying off the handle because you wrongheadedly believe your opinion won't matter next November, let me reassure you that IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW! Purposely distorting facts only makes you look weak-minded, unless you actually BELIEVE this s*** you're spouting.
- C.J. Stewart
April 28, 2008 at 1:40am
You people make Jeremiah Wright's paranoia look like a minor eccentricity! Chill out, for pete's sake! All Chait did was call this ludicrous elevation of the white working class into the Republican version of a PC victim-group by its right name: hypocrisy. High time too.
- ironyroad
April 29, 2008 at 8:00pm
Nice column Jon. George Will is a clown. His columns are laughably pretentious and carry no intellectual weight. George would be disappointed in my attire if he saw me in the airport. I wear sweatpants with an elastic band, plastic wrist watch and prison-issue-like plastic sandals and white socks, and a long sleeve T-shirt, all of which make it easier to clear security checks and metal detectors. Then when I stuff myself into a tiny seat next to an obese person, I don't have to worry if the AC works if we are stuck on the tarmac for three hours, or that I don't get a beverage spilled on the pass-over to the window seat. If George, or any other bow-tie-and-suit-wearing conservative douche bag would like to comment on my inappropriate airport attire as I'm getting needlessly profiled or finding out my plane is delayed, or getting charged $2 for a small bag of peanuts, I would most cheerfully break their f*cking jaw. The biggest a$$holes I ever met in my life all had one thing in common: They all wore suits. Have a nice flight!
- JC
April 17, 2009 at 1:48pm