In the consistently depressing American presidential primaries (depressing anyway for anyone who doesn’t want to see the Rovean attack lines the GOP will use continually roadtested by Democrats that is) the latest furore revolves around some remarks Barack Obama made at a San Francisco fundraiser about blue collar voters - in states like Pennsylvania (or the rustbelt bits thereof as opposed to the swank bits of Philly and the college kid concentrations etc etc).
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that 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.
You can read his remarks in full context at the Huff Post post I linked to above.
As with almost anything Obama says, there are certain quarters where this stuff is read through the poisonous prism of race. But it’s also got a class element. Obama’s reciting the conventional wisdom of the Thomas Frank variety - blue collar whites will vote on cultural identity rather than economics. Frank is actually wrong in his much touted analysis of the correlation between income and Republican voting, as Laura Flanders pointed out some time ago. But expecting actual facts to make it into US political discourse - well, you’ll be waiting with your gun in your cold dead hands for the second coming etc… There are - in truth - enough of such voters around to make a difference in a close race, though (and the last two were both really close).
Where Obama’s right is in suggesting that no one is offering anything to address these voters’ concerns (and that’s a point Flanders makes as well). And there’s the nub of the thing. He is - of course - bashing the Clinton record and NAFTA in particular. (And Hillary’s claims that she opposed NAFTA are possibly true, but, on the other hand, the reason why she’s connecting with working class voters is that the speculative boom that Bill’s policies facilitated made the economy seem much better for the proverbial working stiffs than the Bushite bubble bursting and the massively skewed tax cuts). Whether you believe that Obama would do anything differently from the free trade orthodoxy that’s the reflex setting of the Democratic elites (supported now in large part by lots of folks on Wall Street and in growth “knowledge” industries) and indeed whether you believe the free trade orthodoxy is the problem is another thing altogether.
Obama, too, seems to have a different take on “anti-trade sentiment” in private in San Francisco than in public on the stump.
But the truth is that the only viable candidate on the Democratic side who really did show some signs of having some actual policy fixes for those middle and working class voters who’ve seen steady erosion in their incomes and life chances was John Edwards. And the media damned him as a dangerous populist as quickly as you can say boo.
The partisan attackistas at the Huff Post have also dragged up the inevitable “Bill said something similar in 92″ quote, duly repeated by all the lesser Obamistas in the blogosphere. Whatever this amounts to, it sure isn’t a serious debate about the changing structure of the American economy or about what might be done to redress the enormous imbalances which really are making a lot of lives a whole lot tougher - and not just in small town Pennsylvania. It really is almost enough to make me completely despair of the Democratic Party altogether.
Just to spell out my position, since I know there are quite a few Obama fans around in the Ozblogosphere, I don’t think Hillary is particularly credible as a spokesperson for the voters she’s appealing to. As I’ve been suggesting, she’s partly resting on Bill’s record and partly claiming that she opposed Bill sotto voce. And her “OMG! Look! Obama is an anti-American liberal! And he’s saying this to folks in San Francisco!” is exactly what I’m getting at when I’m saying Democrats are so enthusiastically using the GOP’s line of attack that the actual GOP probably doesn’t need to bother so much. Possibly the most repulsive part of Hillary’s endgame is to try to make Obama unelectable through out GOP-ing the Republicans.
And there’s also the inevitable suggestion with the God thing that he’s possibly *not a real Christian*… not to mention the dog whistling about hoity Blacks and affirmative action that’s par for the course in these messages when enunciated by the GOP.
Didn’t I say in an earlier post you underestimate how poisonous American identity politics has become at your peril?
For those still paying attention to the point of all this huff and puff, the nomination, the next primary is in Pennsylvania on the 22nd. Hillary basically has to win - and win fairly big. There’s some suggestions around that the “bitter” remarks might not hurt Obama, but we’ll see. At the moment, all I can see is the chance for any meaningful change going begging, and quite possibly the chance even for a change of Presidential party. It might be prudent to start trying “President McCain” on for size, because the chances we’ll be having to say it for a few years at least are strengthening.
Kim and All:
What Barack Obama said about bitterness and alienation was absolutely spot on …. and he is the first one with the guts to say it out loud.
Trouble is, he will be politically crucified for telling the truth. It might cost him the Presidency but a hundred years from now, kids will be given TWO role-models for honesty: young George Washington owning up to chopping down the cherry-tree AND Barack Obama on bitterness, guns and religion …. and how his remarks way back in 2008 ignited the spark that led to the restoration of individual liberty for all Americans.
Well, yeah, he’s onto something, Graham. But where’s his solution? Truth telling’s all very well and totally to be encouraged, but we elect a President to (ahem) *change* stuff.
I reckon Clinton should pack it in, or be packed in. Time to move in the bigwigs, and take her out of the equation. Problem solved.
Unless I’m wildely mistaken about numbers: there seems to be some media myth in play (no doubt encouraged by an unspoken unholy alliance b/w Team Hil and Republicans) that she still has some actual chance of winning this ‘ere nomination. When really, she kinda doesnt.
How long will the Democrat wrecking mission be tolerated? Is she just too big to tap on the shoulder?
Yes she is.
As I said, her endgame is to throw so much shit at Obama that he becomes unelectable. And then persuade superdelegates etc.
But she does have to do well - really well as in more than 5 points - in Pennsylvania.
I hope all the backgrounding about manipulation of the rules, delegate eligibility fights, etc. at the Convention itself is just garbage. But it’s also something she’s trying to threaten - pick me or the convention turns into chaos and misery.
Dean is trying to get all the superdelegates to agree by 1 July. But I reckon he’s got Buckley’s. Again, she’s using her still staying in contention as a way to try to wrest the nomination from Obama.
Having said all that, it’s not impossible, and not too unlikely, that she may end up with more votes than him. That’s why Pennsylvania is so important.
And the delegate counts you read in the press are shite. They’re estimates. There can be a lot of slogging and under the counter stuff or even lawsuits in various states between estimate and final count.
It is possible that she can win the nomination. Unlikely. But possible. Whether it’d be worth anything to her is another story.
Yeah, I tend to think it just wont be worth it for the Dems. So Obama said that, Obama said that. Who cares? He’ll be up against McCain - who also said this, and that, and then some.
Clinton’s electability problem seems to be deeper than either. Which would be neither here nor there if her nomination chances didnt (basically) require suspension of disbelief.
It’s hard to know. Never underestimate either the GOP or the Dems’ self-destructive capability. I still reckon Guy Rundle nailed it - there’s a chance that Obama could win big or crash. Hillary might be a safer bet. Whatever Hillary’s insinuating about Obama will be repeated through enormous megaphones constantly when the general election begins. They don’t call it a Republican noise machine for nothing.
I guess - though I gather huge swathes of the GOP heartland is only behind McCain by default. That makes it a different game mano a mano in November.
Won’t take much to get them to stay home. But I get the feeling Clinton would get them out for McCain.
Obama will too, believe me. Like I said before as well, that “he’s a Muslim really” shit is all over the place. And then there’s, well, the obvious. You can rely on GOP types to do a lot of racebaiting.
The other tipping point, and I’m afraid it’s one we’ve crossed, is where the Democratic contest becomes so bitter that neither candidate will be able to carry their defeated opponent’s demographics to the degree they need to. Hillary’s problems are obvious, but Obama also has a big problem with some of the blue collar and elderly voters. That’s why this “bitter” thing has the potential to cause him all manner of grief.
Kim, This “he’s a muslim really” isn’t helped by a most unfortunate (politically) second name.
That aside, he is a first class greenhorn when it comes to shooting off his mouth. He’s been doing it since about the day he threw his hat into the ring.
None of it will affect the rusted on voters, but at the very best, it sure won’t help with attracting the undecideds.
If I may put the case for the “economic orthodoxy” for a minutes, the idea that not signing NAFTA would have helped them in the long run is pretty dubious anyway.
The skewing of the tax cuts, by contrast…
The things that the Obama and Clinton camps have been saying about each other are trivial compared with Bush and McCain in 2000. Once the Democratic convention is over, it will be McCain who feels the heat, especially on economic issues. Years of nasty leadership fights and personal attacks didn’t harm Kevin Rudd or the ALP last year.
I think that’s right, Robert, and it’s interesting to see Obama in his private comments probably thinks that too.
Kevin, there’s a whole different level of intensity in primary shitfights to what we see in Australia. You have to get away from seeing it as in some way akin to a leadership contest. Completely different political system. The Democratic Party is a loose amalgam of state fiefdoms, power centres and active grassroots, and primaries that tear it apart make it very hard to put back together.
The two prime examples of heated primary seasons where the eventual nominee was trashed by their opponents are 68 and 72. Neither Humphrey nor McGovern ever recovered. And Nixon in 68 was seen as being a perennial candidate who’d been round the track too many times, and potentially very beatable.
Obama’s stated policies for jobs are similar to John Edwards I believe, Kim?
ie - say that you will get tough with China and bring jobs back home but in reality concentrate on retraining and assistance packages.
Robert is right. NAFTA isn’t the problem here. Jobs that have disappeared to Mexico because of NAFTA would have just gone to India or China eventually, anyway.
The problem in the US is that it didn’t invest in retraining; job assistance; restructuring assistance; support unionism etc; redistribute the tax burden etc.
There are still plenty of jobs in the US. That’s why Mexicans still flock across the border. Despite the jobs that are moving in the other direction.
However these largely service industry jobs in the US are lowly paid. That’s for the US to decide to fix. Or not. Nothing to do with NAFTA.
Well, look, I agree, wbb. But those things you correctly mention are the height of radicalism in the US. Obama really needs to (a) believe in them and (b) push them vigorously to have any chance of overcoming the enormous black hole that is Congress - regardless of which party controls it.
I’d agree. But if you ask workers in Mexico, many will tell you that you can’t get decent wages, because of the threat to take factories to Asia, which is what in fact happens if the cost structure gets too high in Mexico.
My impression is that that there are problems with each of the NAFTA participants thinking that the whole deal has favoured the others and disadvantaged them. Perhaps not officially, but a significant popular perception.
Hillary has been a disappointment. Too ruthless and too many rather foolish lies.
Brian: from what I’m reading, the “shift jobs to Asia” thing might be starting to tail off a bit.
It seems that the supply of very low-cost Chinese labour is starting to dry up, from a number of reports I’ve read. Combine this with the appreciation of the Chinese currency, and Chinese manufactured exports are likely start increasing in cost.
This is likely to have a knock-on effect around the whole region, and from there around the world.
Indeed, China is now experiencing the same thing - shifts in jobs to Vietnam.
There are limits to this, though, related to infrastructure and the supply of labour. Which adds to the inflation pressures Rob is talking about. The coming (or already present) US recession looks to be - for a range of other reasons too - one where consumer spending gets hit very hard.
As long as the Left keeps trudging up the dead-end path of electoralism…how about rather than relying on Clinton or Obama to ‘fix’ things, getting out on the streets and organising a campaign strong enough to force the US ruling class to bring the troops back from Iraq!?
Precious few of the liberties and gains in standard of living have been won by Democrats in Washington…in most cases they have had to have been dragged kicking a screaming to implement real change and when real change does threaten they launch into desperate attempts to head off mass movements that threaten to get ‘out of control’ and upset the applecart.
Honestly, until the Left gets some decent politics and stops engaging in this Labour of Sisyphus, things will at best stay the same, but most likely get worse…
Well the task of mobilising and organising sufficient numbers of people to withstand and push back against the ruling class mobilisation of the last 25 years in the US, is the definition of ‘decent politics’ I would have thought.
That is the difference between Obama and Clinton, not so much the policies. If anyone here thinks the US ruling class gains of the last 25 years are going to be undone with some policy wonking, and a Congress majority who will just pass the necessary legislation for universal health care for example, you are very mistaken.
The issue is not so much which policies will be adopted, so much as how big and how long will the necessary mobilisation have to be, in order to make even the slightest changes to the current dispensation in the US.
The US ruling class is not used to having to negotiate, and it is going to be an absolutley terrible decade for working people in the US, whether they are paid a salary or a wage, and whether they are working as citizens, or as indentured labour in the degraded service sectors of the US economy. The cry for ‘decent politics’ leaves me cold I am afraid. There are plenty of people who have decent politics. It’s just that they don’t want to do the necessarily difficult work of organising people. La Clinton doesn’t want to organise anyone, because that would disombobulate her financial supporters. Obama needs to mobilise, because he doesn’t have 25 years of favours owing him. That is the difference between them, and it is the difference that might mean a struggle over change, or simply business as usual. if McCain is elected President, it will be pave the way, imo, for the complete destruction of the Republican Party. If he wins, it will also presage an hisotric realigment which will also effct the Democratic party. I hope he doesn’t, because it is absolutely untrue that the worse things get, the better. The worse things get, the worse they get.
What amused said.
There never was much of an anti-war mobilisation in the States. What there was was clobbered by being colonised by the energy sink of the “netroots” and the Democratic leadership. Frankly, there’s bugger all chance of anything people actually do having any impact on getting troops out of Iraq. It’ll happen in some nutsoid and no doubt counterproductive way because the military themselves want out. Unless McCain gets in, which is looking more and more likely, when the consequences might well be as amused spells out.
There’s a lot more chance to change teeny weensy little things to do with how people live - but as I’m saying, you underestimate the degree to which anything whatever to do with workers’ rights and people’s living standards is verboten territory in US politics. So - go with Obama by all means - but keep an eye on the prize. The real prize.
Kim, that’s a circular argument. Not to mention there has a been a large anti-war mobilisation in the US. Its why the politics of the Left in the US is so important…and why obsessing over Clinton vs Obama is a total distraction.
Note, I’m not having a go at you for your article and you raise some interesting points…its just the way the discussion spins off into ‘Capital Hill land’ that is such a frustrating smokescreen.
Well, that’s kinda what I was saying in the post, Chav.
But I don’t think I’m making a circular argument. And I think you’re overestimating the initial size and impetus of the anti-war movement. I also think - from my pov anyway - the movement for economic justice is a higher priority. It’s not difficult to make links between social justice and the military state.
Guy Rundle in today’s Crikey:
“As long as the Left keeps trudging up the dead-end path of electoralism…how about rather than relying on Clinton or Obama to ‘fix’ things, getting out on the streets and organising a campaign strong enough to force the US ruling class to bring the troops back from Iraq!?”
I’ve probably been caught by a troll here but … this is total crap as the “Left” HAS largely been the force that HAS organised the rallies to bring the troops home.
The problem is Chav that even 500K people marching in Sydney weren’t “strong enough” to change the policy of our recently testimonialled ex-PM.
“The problem is Chav that even 500K people marching in Sydney weren’t “strong enough” to change the policy of our recently testimonialled ex-PM.
That’s right, that’s because rallies aren’t enough. They need to be built on and there needs to be an escalation,…sit-ins, occupations, blockades and most importantly, the unions or the rank-and-file need to be brought on board as strike action can be decisive in defeating the war drive.
But have that perspective in the first place you need the politics that looks outside Parliament/Congress to the streets and workplaces where our power really lies.
They need to be built on and there needs to be an escalation,…sit-ins, occupations, blockades and most importantly, the unions or the rank-and-file need to be brought on board as strike action can be decisive in defeating the war drive.
When war fatally weakens the prestige and power of the ruling elite, the above might be proximatley possible. We are a long way from that in relation to the war on Iraq.
The truth is that you are invoking a formulaic account of a formula developed by people who retrospectively ‘imagine’ the social effect of total war.
The war on Iraq will go on and on. There is no ‘draft’ (conscription), the only people who are dying are either poor, (blacks, whites and hispanics in the peculiar racial and ethnic taxonomy reserved for the US working class), from rural US (meaning poor-again) or are contractors, meaning poor but well remunerated mercenaries from all over the empire. While the absolute numbers of US people killed in the war are of course, terrible, it is not total war of the type that your political program envisages, and the possibility of strikes and civil disobedience as a response to its continuing prosecution, are zero.
The US working class will be flat out achieving any social protection whatsoever against the deluge created by financial crisis, even universal health care has proved beyond the politcal capaity of the left and progressive wings of the US politcal class to deliver, and US left and progressive organisers and activists will be flat out deflecting a McCain election victory next year. When things get worse, the tendency is for things to get much worse, before they ever get better.
Re NAFTA - I think it’s worth pointing out to those who think that the US Industrial base has been gutted in recent times that industrial output has in fact grown strongly:
cafehayek and engram
Sure the number of people in manufacturing has declined a lot but that has been going on for a long time and is a good thing (higher productivity). Also, I believe that the level of activity has dipped slightly very recently ( the figures in the links only go to 2005) but the lower dollar will turn that around pretty quickly.
Also interesting is that the US manufacturing economy is 3 times that of the Chinese.
Chav has got it backwards.
Street politics erupted in the states only after it became clear that electoral poltics would not end Vietnam.
Certainly, the Dems have been pusilaminous over Iraq, but the polls are running heavily against continued engagement in Iraq, unlike the polls re Nam until quite late in the piece.
Everyone is just sitting pat counting the days until Bush shambles out of the WH.
Certainly that means that the last American to die in Iraq will die about May 2009 rather than Sept 2008.
But no mainstream Dem wants to upset the apple-cart with a Chicago 1968-style spectacle in this election year.
The anti-war movement knows what’s possible in 2008 USA and they are achieving their goals — slowly.
>
.
Well he could do something very different from the ‘free trade orthodoxy’. He could introduce free trade.
>
Not that that’d make him very popular with the spectre towns of middle America.
“Street politics erupted in the states only after it became clear that electoral poltics would not end Vietnam.”
Street politics put it on the agenda for the Democrats…who eventually got the hint…
“The anti-war movement knows what’s possible in 2008 USA and they are achieving their goals — slowly.”
No, they ain’t achieving shit while they shackle their car to the Democrat jackass. And having a Jackass rather than an Elephant in power ain’t going to help them either.
Amused…why do you imagine the war in Iraq to a component of a static situation when recent history (i.e. 9/11 and the actual invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq) has not been static at all.
Reminds me of the Save Our Sons movement…five women jailed in 1970 for handing out anti-conscription leaflets in Melbourne.
Of course its not the same as last time but can you honestly tell me that, with Clinton’s attitude to Afghanistan and McCain’s to Iraq and Iran, that the current conflict is not going to spread..?
No. In 1968 the Democrats, by choosing Hubert Humphrey in 1968, turned their back on the anti-war movement.
Congressional Democrats played very little part in getting the US out of Vietnam. “Vietnamization” was Nixon’s idea. The anti-war movement helped to persuade Nixon to seek a way out of the war, and the anti-war movement radicalised significantly after the invasion of Cambodia.
But Nixon, who won a landslide in 1972, could afford to ignore the Democrats.
Up to 1972, Nixon’s foreign policy did Nixon no electoral harm at all. Street politics enabled Nixon to appeal to and to win the “Silent Majority”.
But on the contrary, since 2003, Bush’s foreign policy, and especially Iraq, has helped to sink the GOP.
This success has been achieved without street politics. And perhaps it can be argued that it has been achieved because there have been fewer manifestations of street politics.
(However, Obama’s recent gaffe has threatened to galvanise the GOP-leaning silent majority into action again.)
And it should not be forgotten that the counter-culture of the 60s-70s had bigger fish to fry. As Jerry Rubin said, “If Vietnam didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.” The anti-war movement was perceived by many as a means to a bigger end — the transformation of American culture. At present in the US there is no serious left counter-culture.
As a result it is more permissable to be anti-war in 2008 because that stance doesn’t imply a general repudiation of American mainstream values.
[link]
Obama speaks to American voters as if they are adults. I think enough of them are listening to elect him.
The most significant part of Obi’s reply to Senator Duck-Clinton came near the end of his address in Steelton PA. He did it without auto-cues. He swatted her condescending “Annie Oakley” attack on him as an “out of touch elitist” while simultaneously barrelling Johnny Bomb-Bomb.
Obi tagged the pair of them as Beltway-beholden whores, but he did it nice.
“……this campaign we said we were gonna do something different….
we said we weren’t gonna take Pac. money
we weren’t gonna take money from federal lobbyists
because I wanted to be accountable to you.
And there were all kinds of people who said, well….
he’s not going to be able to compete against all those big money interests in
Washington.
Well you know what they didn’t understand, they didn’t understand you.
They didn’t understand that you were tired of politics that was all about tearing
each other down, you wanted politics that was all about lifting the country up,
They didn’t understand, they didn’t UNDERSTAND that you were gonna finance my campaign with 25 dollar contributions and fifty dollar contributions.
They didn’t understand that you were gonna help to build the best political organisation out there, that could compete with anybody no matter how many big endorsements the other candidates got, we had the people on our side…….
And so I’m here to say to you, all of my friends in Layton
…that…you have funded my campaign…..
I am accountable to you……those lobbyists, they have not funded my campaign,
they will not run our White House and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m president of the United States of America.
[link]
Clinton is some 135-140 delegates behind and unless something majorly dramatic happens, it’s only a matter of time before she folds her hand. Of the comments so far, Kevin Rennie at 11 rings truest imo.
[The things that the Obama and Clinton camps have been saying about each other are trivial compared with Bush and McCain in 2000. Once the Democratic convention is over, it will be McCain who feels the heat, especially on economic issues. Years of nasty leadership fights and personal attacks didn’t harm Kevin Rudd or the ALP last year.]
McCain is also deeply stepped in the blood of the Iraq fiasco. When the Dem dust clears after Obi has seen HRC off, he will make political pink mist of McCain despite the histrionics of the MSM. Just as the majority of the electorate were switched off to all things Johnny before Tin-Tin’s ascendancy, so too are a majority of US voters swithched off to all things GOPper.
With all due respect to Kevin and EC, I wouldn’t be nearly as certain in my judgement of how an election in another country will pan out. I don’t even speculate much on ones on other states! Having said that, I think it’s wise to be quite cautious about ruling out a McCain victory.
“As long as the Left keeps trudging up the dead-end path of electoralism.”
It’ called democracy.
“… getting out on the streets and organising a campaign strong enough to force the US ruling class to bring the troops back from Iraq!?”
The elected Government in Iraq hasn’t asked the CoW troops to leave. In fact it periodically says it wants them to stay. Until the Iraqi Government say go leaving isn’t an option- or at least not an ethical one.
As to Obama’s contentious statement, I only wish he’d make more such refreshingly candid comments. I doubt he’ll lose any votes- nephew Cletus and uncle Earl were never gonna vote for him anyway.
Kim [way back at 2]:
Maybe Barack Obama will “change” things
…. by doing something to stop the export of American jobs, by cleaning up the mess Bush left in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, by fighting wars to win VICTORY instead of to make your cronies rich …. and by giving hillbillies and all impoverished Americans the right to be heard everywhere and on all subjects instead of on the very narrow range of secondary issues they are ordered to talk about - abortion, guns, creationism, The Flag, homosexuals [that’s the full list of permitted subjects, isn’t it?].
If Barack Obama does become the Democrats candidate, it will be interesting to see how many out-and-out Republicans in absolutely “redneck” constituencies will vote for him solely because of the report of his private remarks on bitterness.