Call me an elitist but . . .

I found a lot of truth in Obama's recent comment about "small town Pennsylvania". Sure it came out wrong, but can we buck the trend for a minute and dig a little deeper.

Michael Lind highlighted Obama's gaffe at Salon.com, basically reiterating the standard criticisms of the "gaffe". (Ever notice how when John McCain tells the truth, it is straight-talk, and when Obama tells the truth, it is a gaffe?) Obama is out-of-touch, condescending elitist. This paragraph sums up Lind's views, and the now conventional wisdom, nicely:

To judge from Obama's several statements on the subject, he sincerely believes that working-class whites, lacking the self-awareness to recognize the actual economic origins of their distress, seek relief from their pain by praying in church, slaughtering deer, and making illegal immigrants and imports from foreign countries scapegoats for ills that have nothing to do with immigration or trade. They may not be racists, they may even be sympathetic victims, but they are too irrational to understand their genuine problems and their true interests, which are chiefly economic, a fact that university-educated progressives in big cities and college towns can readily perceive.

In other words, "low-information voters". People too uninformed to know what is good for them. By definition, those who govern out of a condescending concern for those too ignorant to know better are elites. The question is whether that was what Obama was actually saying.

Obama's own remarks in clarification of the "gaffe" paint an entirely different picture (h/t Numerian at agonist.org) :

When I go around and I talk to people there is frustration and there is anger and there is bitterness. And what's worse is when people are expressing their anger then politicians try to say what are you angry about? This just happened - I want to make a point here today.

I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how're you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What's going on there? We hear that's its hard for some working class people to get behind you're campaign. I said, "Well look, they're frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.

And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement-- so, here's what rich. Senator Clinton says 'No, I don't think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack's being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he's obviously out of touch with people.'

Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain--it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch? Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch? No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania. I know what's going on in Indiana. I know what's going on in Illinois. People are fed-up.

They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America.

The message is entirely different. The message is not that these voters are low-information. Not at all. Rather, they are keenly aware that neither party in the past 30 years has been able to meaningfully affect their day-to-day economic realities. The parties have differentiated themselves, though, on culture issues. Take a look at this snippet from the quote above:

And so people end up- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on.

The fact that voters can meaningfully effect changes in gun laws and gay rights by voting for one party or another isn't a cause for celebration in the greatness of democracy. It should be seen as an indictment of the whole of Washington. The message is, Washington cannot get its act together and fix healthcare, save your jobs, secure social security, or properly fund education. But we can let the assault weapon ban lapse! So vote Republican or the next president might bring the assault weapon ban back.

Is there truth to Obama's statements that economically the government has been AWOL for these folks? Let's throw some statistics into the mix. I did not find statistics on Pennsylvania, but I did find some on a place close to a lot of Mirth and Matter writers' hearts, Oregon. This is a chart from the Oregon Labor Market Information System website:



As you can see, Oregon wages, adjusted for inflation, are basically the same now as they were in 1976. As a whole, the country has done a bit better. Of course, the picture is much more complicated then that. Here is the breakdown by county:

Table 1

Oregon Counties' Annual Average Covered Wage
1976 and 2006 (2006 Dollars)
Area	1976	2006	1976-2006 Percent Change
STATEWIDE	$38,192	$38,057	0%
Washington County	$36,930	$48,140	30%
Gilliam County	$24,933	$31,215	25%
Benton County	$37,355	$40,475	8%
Multnomah County	$41,208	$43,013	4%
Clackamas County	$38,076	$39,194	3%
Sherman County	$30,984	$31,347	1%
Deschutes County	$33,833	$33,329	-1%
Umatilla County	$32,686	$30,537	-7%
Malheur County	$29,134	$27,212	-7%
Marion County	$35,760	$33,322	-7%
Yamhill County	$35,418	$32,780	-7%
Jefferson County	$32,762	$29,772	-9%
Morrow County	$36,205	$32,577	-10%
Lane County	$37,151	$33,234	-11%
Crook County	$36,908	$32,718	-11%
Jackson County	$35,789	$31,677	-11%
Tillamook County	$33,043	$29,126	-12%
Lincoln County	$32,409	$27,877	-14%
Josephine County	$33,419	$28,458	-15%
Klamath County	$36,558	$31,091	-15%
Union County	$34,737	$29,158	-16%
Lake County	$34,738	$28,962	-17%
Linn County	$40,356	$33,486	-17%
Clatsop County	$36,026	$29,386	-18%
Wasco County	$34,973	$28,396	-19%
Baker County	$33,362	$27,075	-19%
Douglas County	$39,035	$31,401	-20%
Grant County	$35,848	$28,683	-20%
Wallowa County	$31,665	$25,178	-20%
Curry County	$33,992	$26,908	-21%
Polk County	$36,095	$28,303	-22%
Hood River County	$32,456	$25,340	-22%
Harney County	$38,556	$28,469	-26%
Columbia County	$44,735	$32,213	-28%
Coos County	$39,078	$28,046	-28%
Wheeler County	$37,732	$22,506	-40%

Great if you live in Washington or Gilliam county. Not so great if you live in Wheeler county. Now I have never been to Pennsylvania. But I've been to Polk County, Coos County, and some of those other counties which have experience double digit wage decreases in the last 30 years. And when people talk about the vast middle of Pennsylvania, my mind thinks of those places in Oregon.

So when Obama says that people in economically depressed areas are frustrated, can anyone reasonably say that that is not true? And the economic problems span both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses. Voters are checking out, and voting on the only aspect of the system they feel they can change: the culture. Oh, and this might contribute to that bitterness:





Apparently there is a block of voters that can work the system in their favor to improve their economic stature. The problem is there are just not enough millionaires out there to make up a majority.

So four conclusions can be drawn, not all of which are mutually exclusive:

1) Obama's contention that voters, disenfranchised by the economic state of affairs for the last 30 years, increasingly vote on culture issues rather than economic issues. This disenfranchisement leads to a justifiable bitterness.

2) Obama really is an out-of-touch elitist. By contrast, even though Clinton's policies are 97% the same, she is not an elitist because she either does not believe or ignores the possibility that 30 years of wage stagnation could produce bitterness. John McCain is the least elite of all, even though his party's policies have are largely responsible for the problem. He, however, loves guns, church, and hard work, and thus is in touch with these voters.

3) The old adage that people vote with their pocketbooks is false. Rather, people really care strongly about culture issues. So strongly, in fact, that they will vote against their economic self-interest in order to win on those issues. Obama, by attributing concern with culture issues to a sense of economic bitterness, has in fact insulted all of middle America.

4) The old adage that people vote with their pocketbooks is true. Republicans have won by riding a perception of fiscal responsibility that has not been true for at least a quarter of a century. Democrats have lost by succumbing to a stereotype of fiscal irresponsibility that also has not been true for a quarter of a century. In other words, the rabble is misinformed and Obama was simply inelegant enough to point it out. Those in the media and in Clinton and McCain's camps know that to win you have to pander to those voters, not tell them the truth.

To a certain extent all four of these are true. As I've attempted to point out above, there is a lot of truth to number one. A certain percentage of single-issue voters will always fall into group three. And, at the risk of being one of those elitists, number four is also true.

Number two is true in the sense that as long as the media keeps covering the controversy, this perception will become reality, at least in terms of the campaign. This issue is not whether Obama is actually elite. He is. In fact, anyone running for President of the United States, at least in the 20th century, is an elite. They just aren't like you and me. And that is a good thing. We (hopefully) want our President to be elite. We want them to be smarter than us, a better speaker than us, etc.

Rather, the media is less concerned with analyzing the substance of the comment and more concerned with analyzing the effect the comment will have on Obama's candidacy. The effect is that it plays into every Republican/Democrat stereotype for the last 30 years. The dance is that even though all candidates are elite, it is important to project the image of the "everyman". Democrats, especially, must do this, since Republican are presumed to be less elite the Democrats. To not do so risks the chance that you will insult the all-important voting block of the "small-town values voter". Leave aside that the media's gross characterization of this "block" of voters is as insulting as the characterization Obama used. You can't not pander to a group, you can't tell the truth, because to do so will kill your chances of winning. And just in case you aren't losing quite yet, we'll repeat this again and again until you do.

Obama did not retract his statement. He did not apologize. He clarified it, although there is scant evidence that the clarification has changed anything. Perhaps he is hoping we might have a real discussion about real economic problems. He should counter that unlike his and Clinton's policies, McCain's program of offering deregulation and tax cuts, privatized health care and social security, along with an endless, expensive war, is the real insult to the "average American".

Instead, the discussion of the controversy leaves out the complexity of the problem and degenerates into platitudes about "hard-work", "American dream", "elitism", "middle-America", and "values-voters". Thus, the Republicans have won the debate. By definition, Republicans are in touch with these value voters because they like guns, church, and hard work. Democrats, by definition, are elitist because they come from the "coasts" and the "cities". They somehow don't get it. The only way for a Democrat to win is to model themselves after a Republican, go bowling, and hope they can eek out a victory.

In his piece arguing that Obama is an elitist (quoted above), Lind inadvertently makes my point:

Whether the "bitter" controversy helps Hillary Clinton win enough votes in the final primaries to beat the odds and win the Democratic nomination remains to be seen. At press time, she was surging in the polls. One thing is certain: In the fall election, John McCain, whoever his Democratic opponent might be, will portray himself as the candidate who defends the dignity and pride of working-class and lower-middle-class Americans of all races against the disdain of elite liberals. Unfortunately, many progressives will make that task much easier by repeating the litany of contempt: Rubes. Rednecks. Retro. [emphasis mine]

The difference between Clinton and Obama's approach is that Clinton is dancing the dance, and Obama is not. Perhaps this is political suicide for Obama. After all, Clinton is benefiting from the controversy now. As long as the debate is framed this way, though, she will lose that fight in November. By acknowledging how disingenuous the dynamic is, Obama at least has the chance to change the narrative, in the same way that he has tried to change the narrative on patriotism and national security.

Even though 80% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track, the contest between change and more of the same comes out to about 50/50. This makes no sense. I personally don't want another election to come down to whether enough Ohio or Florida voters can break with Republicans in order for the Democratic candidate to scrape out a victory. I'd like to see the red state/blue state map redrawn. In fact, I'd like to see it tossed out the window. But to do so we need an honest assessment of each party's strengths and weaknesses on the economy, foreign policy, national defense, environment, and every other policy. We need some truth-telling, not pandering, and we need a candidate who will take traditional Republican talking points such as fiscal responsibility, economic stewardship, national security, and patriotism head-on. Otherwise we will have more of the same.