Barack Obama has been receiving considerable flack about this statement made earlier in the week - "It's not surprising then they [economically hard-pressed workers] get bitter, 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." Hillary Clinton and John McCain have gleefully called such words "elitist," Obama has regretted and clarified them, and the media have been having their customary field day, ever on the lookout for a possible slip by a major contender.
You know what I think? It's no big deal.
Why should working families having trouble making ends meet take offense at a Presidential candidate recognizing that they may be feeling bitter? That's a normal human reaction, and ignoring or denying it - as Clinton and McCain are doing - is plain hypocrisy.
What about the linking of religion to this? Well, I thought that was supposed to be one of the social purposes of religion - giving solace and comfort to people who may be frustrated for whatever reason. How is what Obama said an insult?
And the reference to guns? As any psychologist will tell you, feelings of powerlessness can indeed sometimes lead to violent fantasies - and realities. (Not videogames, by the way, and not television - but real life frustration.) So in what way was Obama so wrong to make this point?
All in all, this is another tempest in the teapot, stirred by Obama's opponents and happily carried by the media.
You know what else?
I think the workers of America - including Pennsylvania - are far too bright to fall for this.
40 comments:
He made his point more clearly in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90
People in Pennsylvania stick together when things get rough. They do not riot or blame the Government like the scum in New Orleans. Obama encouaged the rioting in New Orleans and this will back fire on him.
"anonymous" must be Blogger lingo for troll. I "encouage" you to find a heart and put it to better use than wasting everyone's time with nonsense.
The problem with the situation here is that people like Lou Dobbs will do the heavy lifting for the GOP's Rove types during the general election and paint an even more developed picture of Obama as a Muslim who doesn't love this country. It's worked so far, and it's a worry in key midwest states.
I think people are generally smart enough to deal with these kinds of smear campaigns, but he'll have to start putting some serious distance in the polls when he's the official nominee to offset the Roveworks coming his way. Remember, if Obama is right (I know he is) then enough voters out there who've fallen on hard times will scapegoat him and vote McCain.
Guns and religion were popular even when America was at its highest point and these people were making steel and cars for the world and making good money.
Obama was spouting dogma at a captive San Francisco crowd who loves to believe such bad logic because it makes them feel superior to the rubes.
Any Democrat would have said the same thing. Unfortunately Obama cannot because as the first African-American with a shot...trust is big.
Saying you are a dedicated Christian and then disparaging those who "cling" to religion looks two-faced and untrustworthy to people who were just starting to trust.
This IS a problem and he better get onto fixing it quickly and sincerely.
anon1: I think MikeP has you pegged. I would only add that it is boring that you Republican, racist trolls have so little facility with the language.
anon2: You can say, even in all caps, that this "IS" a problem, but that doesn't make it so. The fact is any sensible human being would admit that these kinds of reactions to frustrations - religion, guns, etc - are human nature, as I said in my post.
It's therefore not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It's a question of people appreciating that Obama is a different kind of politician, who takes human social psychology seriously. That's one of the reasons - his perception and candor - that he's done so well, so far.
Obama is a different kind of politician alright. He was taught in a muslim school, he will not pledge allegiance to our flag. He has been seen turning his back to our flag. I want someone who will do right for our country and not constantly crap on it.
"He was taught in a muslim school."
Not true. I defy you to find any evidence of this whatsoever. Real, empirical evidence. Not Karl Rove evidence. He attended a public school in Indonesia. A secular, public school with a lot of Muslim kids. Not a Muslim school.
"he will not pledge allegiance to our flag."
Also, patently false. Here's a link to a YouTube video of Obama leading the Senate in the pledge of allegiance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYspjJCjgX8
"He has been seen turning his back to our flag."
Where, when, and in what context? You have no idea and you will never have any idea because it's a false, Right wing talking point created by racists like you.
YOU crap on our country by spreading hatred and lies in order to further the ideology that appeals to your inner demons. I feel pity for you.
anon3: And this is why I decided not to register as Republican. I've been raised a Republican my whole life, from my grandfather and my father - as I believe this party was the best choice, but reading bigoted comments like this make me disgusted.
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, 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."
I am endlessly amazed at the broken logic used by people who post under the name 'anonymous'. Is it not bad enough to hide under a rock while pushing slander, but to do so while claiming the rock is painted in the colors red, white, and blue? If we are to judge a person by their character, I believe the 'anonymous' of the world are cowards.
Though at first I found the whole "Obama apologetics" movement humorous, I now find it quite boring and irritating. The context in which Obama made these statements elucidates their meaning perfectly; there was no need for him to clarify them. He quite clearly suggested that religion, and somehow guns, are an emotional or intellectual crutch. That is what is insulting about these comments -- the implication that somehow religion and guns are for the weak who cannot otherwise deal with the difficulties and hardships they encounter in life. Personally, I'm agnostic, but I believe that people turn to religion for many reasons besides venting their bitterness and frustration. Futhermore, Obama's reference to guns carried similar connotations. He implied that economically hard-pressed workers cling to guns out of bitterness and frustration. I suppose we shall see how the supreme court rules on the the matter of D.C.'s handgun ban in a few months, but there are those who "cling to guns" because they believe that the 2nd amendment is perfectly clear. Perhaps Obama believes that those bitter people are clinging to their "misinterpretation" of the constitution because they feel powerless. However,I disagree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, and I believe that there are others (perhaps Chief Justice Roberts) who would agree with me.
I don't claim to have a foolproof solution to the current economic crisis (though I believe that ending the war immediately would be a good start), but I do believe that the solution to this crisis is not one that can be provided by more government. However, judging from his former speeches and proposed policy ideas, Obama sees the government as the answer to most of these economic and social ills, and therin, for me at least, lies the proverbial rub.
At the end of all this. It ALMOST doesn't matter. I have two words for you Die Bold. It's the company that makes electronic voting machines in case you didn't know. Basically what it comes down to is if it's McCain vs the pope or G-d him/herself. McCain will most likely win hands down. They pulled this crap on Nader, Ron Paul, and Kucinich... just to name a few. The media/Clinton/McCain is trying to make a stink on what Obama said? If you're reading this Fox news. Americans are a bunch of domesticated pussies. Our hippy grandparents would look down on us with shame. Guys just bend over and take it. The media right now is just giving Clinton(she will def lose which doesn't really matter because I will tell you why) and Obama(Black dude) a lot of play and at the end I fear Obama who is our last hope (I think) He is my third choice FYI: Ron Paul, Kucinich, then Obama) At the end when McCain wins with the help of Die Bold the media can justify, twist, or analyze/say whatever they want. I guess America isn't ready for a ______(Black/Women) president yet.
Or my other theory is... Obama is a part of the plan. He is bought out and he is going to be another white man's puppet. I don't endorse anything the mainstream media endorses due to lack of trust which is why Obama is so at the bottom of my list. Well guys... we had a good run. Keep watching TV.
Its utter nonsense. hillary supporters have totally lost it. they just what to attack obama - just to get him down. there's no substance, they call him a muslim who cant be trusted, as if hillary can be trusted anymore of not selling out t the corporates. there's enoug hevidence and more of her incompetence!
I would point out that the contention was not that bitterness breeds interest in gun or religion, but that in the absence of a government that is interested in their well-being, people focus more on the solid pillars of their social culture. The key word is more.
In hard times, when disillusioned by those who won't listen to them, people use that time they would have used trying to raise awareness, and instead spend it in prayer. I know I turn to God when I feel overwhelmed or under appreciated.
Even when men turn away, God is always there, ready and willing to listen to your prayers.
Or if they don't invest more interest in their religion, they might focus more on their hobbies. Like firearms.
Rob - I can't help noting that you say Obama's comments require no clarification, and then you provide a few paragraphs of (incorrect) clarification of your own.
(Incorrect, because Obama never said frustration is the only reason people may turn to religion, Obama has in fact acknowledged the significance of the Second Amendment, etc., etc.)
But you get points for at least presenting a rationally constructed argument - and are welcome to comment here in Infinite Regress any time.
Chris: I agree completely - well said.
Soup: Well said, too.
anon (I'm losing track of the #s - this is to the anon who wrote about Diebold) - I'm not as cynical as you. In fact, I predict Obama will be our next President.
Why? Because I believe, as did Jefferson, that humans are inherently rational, and, given a choice, can often make good decisions.
@Rob,
C'mon...he 'clearly suggested that guns and/or religion is a crutch'? I think you need to hear Obama speak that passage again. That's not what he said at all, despite your attempts to interpret what he meant.
Firstly, religion is SUPPOSED to be a crutch, something that supports you in life when you need it most...so I whatever negative you're trying to portray is actually a major part of any faith. Religion is meant to be clung to when things are bad, and for a lot of people it's all they cling to. And that's not a coincidence. Religion (not God, there is a BIG dif) since its inception has been used to opiate the disenfranchised.
Secondly Obama didn't imply guns were a crutch at all. As far as guns are concerned, it's true that they are clung to by a lot of scared, angry and disgruntled people. The same people who wind up in militias, seperatists groups, hate groups. These groups embrace guns like babes to their mothers. They cling to their guns, desperate for some kind of power, fantasizing that they might defeat the US government (uhm, not very freakin' likely) or some imagined dystopia.
And it's not about weakness, it's about how people think they can solve their problems with a gun.
It's not about the 2nd amendment. It's about getting to the root causes of poverty and crime.
So, when Obama refers to guns and religion being items that the disenfranchised tend to cling to, he's pretty dead on as long as you don't misinterpret. Again, it makes a difference to listen to the speech in its entirety.
The rest of you haters though, you're all f*cked up. At least Rob here posed an intelligent argument.
Paul, I see your point. Obama never cited frustration or bitterness as the only reason people turn to religion. However, I believe that the offense people take at his comments is due to the implication, intended or otherwise, of religion as a crutch. This perception likely stems from his use of the work "cling". However, Obama's position on the second amendment is quite tenuous. I'd recommend this article as a small but telling synopsis. It would appear that he has since tempered his strongly pro gun-control positions during his rise to national prominence. Anyway, thank you for your invitation to post here. Perhaps we could find some more common ground on a less politically charged issue. I'm a huge BSG fan; what do you think of season 4 thus far?
@wisefool9,
I completely disagree with your assessment of the negative connotation of clinging to religion. When Carl Marx said "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" he meant to imply that it is used to pacify and control the people. Furthermore, many Christian apologists would tell you that your view of faith as a crutch completely bastardizes and misconstrues the true nature of the religion. Yes, faith can give people strength in a time of need. However, a time of need is when many people loose their faith. Religion, many Christians I know would argue, is NOT supposed to be a crutch, but rather a system of values and beliefs one adopts when the come to see "the truth" (again, noting that I am agnostic, I do not acknowledge this "truth" personally).
Second, you're statements concerning the ownership of guns perfectly exemplifies the point I am making. Why are gun owners "scared, angry and disgruntled people"? In particular, I contend that guns are NOT the root cause of poverty and crime. It is precisely this type of logical fallacy that led to the disaster we now call the "War on drugs". Of course I agree that the real problems can only be solved by getting to the "root cause" of poverty and crime. My main point of contention is that many people disagree with what that root cause, and thus the solution, is. Libertarians, such as myself, look for solutions that do not rely on bestowing more power and oversight on the government. However, many of the solutions proposed by Obama call for more, not less, government intervention. It is this general premise to which I have a strong philosophical objection.
:) I'm loving it (BSG 4), so far ...
It's doing a great job of keeping the options open about the final Cylon ... my picks are either Admiral Cane or the politician (former VP) played by Richard Hatch ... I've reviewed the first two episodes of the new season here on Infinite Regress - feel free to jump into the commentary.
Are you a fan of Lost per chance?
ps - my previous happy note was to Rob about Battlestar Galactica...
===
Wisefool: I agree with your analysis of religion...
Rob - most aspects of life, including religion, are rarely either/or. In the case of religion, it can indeed be used as a crutch, and is, and that is one of its purposes (as Wisefool and I are saying). And there's no necessary negative connotation in "crutch" - you're spiritually or emotionally injured, it's good to have something to draw on, or lean upon, to help get back on your feet.
But that doesn't mean that's the only purpose of religion. It also tries to give people some sense of what we're doing here in this universe (which, of course, we're also free to not take, and work out our own bearings as best we can, or even leave the wound of not knowing open).
So in Obama's case was religion a crutch? Did he use Wright and his church as a crutch because he was emotionally injured by typical white people and used Trinity Church to get back on his feet.
Or did Obama's religion give him an oracle as to his purpose on Earth.
As for your prediction I agree Obama will win. I have a prediction too. Once he wins the White House he will convert to Islam.
I agree. This is why I acknowledge that many people turn to faith in their time of need. However, the context in which Obama made this comment:
"they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiments"
is what imparts the negative connotations. This statement implicitly relates the "objects" (in the linguistic sense) of clinging. A crutch can be helpful when we use it in need, but harmful when we come to rely on it unnecessarily as a manner of habit. In the comment above, Obama draws an implicit relation between the objects of clining; guns, religion, antipathy, anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiments. It is difficult, in this context to divorce the negative connotation from this mention of religion. This is why I made the point I did, and why I believe in this particular context the connotation of a crutch is a negative one.
Concerning BSG, I hadn't thought of Cane as the final Cylon... thats intriguing! I am also thoroughly enjoying season 4 so far. Unfortunately, I never really had a chance to get into Lost. I blame this on my lack of free time due to grad school :).
Note that I am stating that I agree with Paul's comment that religion serves multiple purposes, not with Blue Frog's conspiratorial prediction about Obama winning and establishing Islam as the national state sanctioned religion.
blue frog - you may have a talent for fiction (as for prediction, I'm afraid not)....
rob - you should never education get in the way of watching good television :)
What are you studying in grad school?
Paul, I'm a PhD student in the department of Computer Science at the University of Maryland. My interests, in particular, are in computer graphics, scientific visualization, and "visual informatics".
@ blue frog
"So in Obama's case was religion a crutch? Did he use Wright and his church as a crutch because he was emotionally injured by typical white people and used Trinity Church to get back on his feet."
This is precisely the point. Obama never said that religion primarily serves as a crutch. His statement, examined intelligently rather than hysterically, is trying to demonstrate why people vote against their own economic interest. They do so because in dire straits they only have culture to turn to, as the government has let them down time and time again. In a broader view, Obama joined his church (a 90% white church) because he began to evolve as a person and found something missing that could only be filled with Faith.
"Once he wins the White House he will convert to Islam."
1. You let the cat out of the bag on yourself here by showing your stripes as a real Right wing, nutjob, hate monger.
2. Barack Obama is about the most evangelical Democrat we've seen on the national stage since Jimmy Carter. He has measured views about how his Faith can be incorporated into his life as a public servant (thankfully) but he's more truly evangelical than McCain for sure.
3. If he did convert to Islam once sworn in (a ridiculous idea in every respect), so what? Islam is a beautiful religion, once the pinnacle of science and mathematics. It's a religion of personal discipline and commitment. Your implication is that he'd convert, go on a jihad, slaughter lots of little decent, Christian, white girls, and then turn the United States into an Islamofascist state like the Taliban.
Pitifully stupid and hateful.
Hey Dr. Lev,
Where'd all the trolls come from on this one? I feel like I'm in Middle Earth....
rob: you should come by Second Life, if you haven't already. My name there is PaulLevinson Freenote. You can get a free account at secondlife.com - and you can "teleport" to my book shop by clicking on its picture in the right frame of this blog...
mike: comes with the territory ... anything that makes the front page of Digg attracts the whole gamut ... the good (people you have a good conversation with - like Rob - even if you disagree), the not-so-good, and the outright trolls...
speaking of good comments - excellent point about Islam, Mike...
Im a republican only to support Ron Paul. After that, I believe Obama has the most genuine message even though I don't agree with him on many points.
Welcome to Infinite Regress, Steve.
At the beginning of this election process - and through December - I was supporting Ron Paul as the best Republican and Barack Obama as the best Democrat.
The beauty of the internet is that it enables us to make our own choices, our own decisions. When I first heard about Obama's comments, I was honestly appalled. But after hearing his ENTIRE speech on youtube, I understand the comments he made...I still wish he didn't say it though. (And I don't know if I'd go so far as calling it "no big deal." For him to regret the comments, I think proves that he agrees it may have been somewhat inappropriate.) The media made it seem as if this was some kind of isolated comment. If you listen to his speech in its entirety, you understand that his comments were FARRRRRRR from elitist. In fact, his comments show that he actually understands, relates to, and empathizes with the people. I'm still rooting for Obama, but I must say he's made me feel a little uneasy as of late, from the pastor shenanigans, to the this, to even the way he handled the annoying guy who wanted to take a photo with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkMegScg3U .
Hey Professor! sorry I'm late to the party- Plugh- nice Tolkien Reference.
I gotta disagree here professor- The reason I think that it is a big deal is the issues that Obama lumped together to describe these economically hard pressed workers.
He puts bitterness, guns, religion, racism (which is really what I think obama meant when he says 'people who aren't like them) and anti-immigration and anti trade sentiment together.
He takes issues he doesn't like (guns for instance) and puts them with broader issues they aren't related to (like trade)
Economically depressed people hate NAFTA- because it killed a lot of US jobs. It crippled unions- the threat of the strike has no meaning anymore- companies will just leave. Economically depressed workers are disenfranchised because they were over looked, and ignored.
Guns have nothing to do with it. Neither does religion. I feel Obama is saying 'those poor dumb yokles don't even know who to blame'
obviously thats a bit of exaggeration for effect, but thats the sentiment. A lot of gun forums are blowing up at this because they already hate Obama for being so against the Gun owning segment of the population. (and he is very anti-gun)
I don't think Obama is getting any tighter scrutiny then the other candidates would have received. It just seems that way because Obama has less blow ups I think.
as for your comment on guns and violence- I'm sorry professor but you are totally off base. you are paralleling an inanimate object that has no morality with violent tendencies. Guns are neither violent nor non-violent- they are tools. You are stating that gun owners have violent fantasies- this is no more true then pet owners have fantasies about domination. it is an unreasonable and inaccurate conclusion.
Well, here's what I said in my post, Mike - "And the reference to guns? As any psychologist will tell you, feelings of powerlessness can indeed sometimes lead to violent fantasies - and realities. (Not videogames, by the way, and not television - but real life frustration.)"
That's not really saying that gun owners all have violent fantasies, or that owning a gun will lead to violent fantasies.
What it is saying is that feelings of powerlessness can sometimes lead to violent fantasies - that's classic Freudian psychology, by the way.
Is that what you find "unreasonable and inaccurate"?
Or are you disagreeing that if someone has a violent fantasy - for whatever reason - that guns may be part of that fantasy?
None of these conditions, by the way - the fantasies that being powerless may generate, the inclusion of guns in a violent fantasy - contradict your point that guns are just tools.
So, what, then, are you disagreeing with? :)
Prof L says, "And the reference to guns? As any psychologist will tell you, feelings of powerlessness can indeed sometimes lead to violent fantasies - and realities. (Not videogames, by the way, and not television - but real life frustration."
if your not claiming that guns have a relationship to violent fantasies, I'm not sure I understand why you included the Freudian Psychology, or was it a Freudian slip? :p
I guess I just don't see why you included the violence aspect. Maybe I missed it in the original Obama quote? I just feel it came a bit out of no where.
I won't disagree that guns can be part of violent fantasies (but if I had a violent fantasy it would include throwing Furby's- I hated those damn things)
So to sum up- my hair got bristled because I felt that your statement was a leading one to get people to associate guns with violence. if that makes any sense.
I'd definitely recommend you look at Obama's original and subsequent comments on this issue, Mike - they're all over the web.
In fact, if you think about what Obama said (and the analysis I offered in my post), it's really an argument against the claim that guns somehow cause or stir up violence.
To the contrary, Obama is explaining that frustrations - bitterness of over unfair economic conditions - can lead to guns.
Guns aren't the cause of this problem - they are just one of many results of frustration.
The logic of this line of reasoning is not to ban guns, but do something about the unfair economic conditions.
You could do some good by going back to those gun boards, and explaining a little of this ... :)
I'll see what I can drum up for support. I'll not dispute that economic disparity is THE main cause of crime in our country.
Yo Chris Larson (or whoever you are): are you aware that the "anonymous" byline is about as clear as the other monikers in this blog. Who is Rob really? or tme2nsb? or even Mike Plugh? With the exception of Paul, the erudite master of the blog, we are all trolls lurking in the shadows. Let's face it, we are the "illegal aliens" of the Information Age ... no one really knows who we are, where we come from. We are the cyber-immigrants who work the back channel "fields" of the Internet feeding the blogosphere engine with our sweat, blood and tears.
btw, you do know that all the postings by "anon" are not by the same person. just checking.
/jimy_max
Actually, I can vouch for the IDs of Mike Plugh, Mikespot, and Rasheeda - all students of mine, and out there on the web and the world causing all kinds of good trouble...
But, otherwise, you're right, jimy_max - and, in fact, I'd say no more than 5% of the commentators here in past year have been my students, or otherwise known to me...
Well, I'm from the UK, and my take on Obamas words (and actions, see http://www.zombietime.com/ for photo coverage and transcript) is that it's a particularly egregious example of the contempt politicians hold for the ordinary voter.
This isn't purely a feature of Obama, however his inexperience makes him more prone to let the mask slip.
Of course, Obama supporters plainly don't care and the people he offended weren't going to vote for him anyway.
How is what Obama said an insult? You have to be kidding me. Obama is not infallible, he insulted the people of Pennsylvania and has paid for it.
I'm a Pennsylvanian and a successful Fordham grad and I'm insulted! But how can that be I should be smarter than that according to your circular logic. In addition to be insulted by Obama, now I am insulted by you.
Post a Comment