More on Reagan and “bitterness”
As the clusterfuck of the era of conservative government thankfully winds down, there’s been a lot more examination of it in terms of its origins and such, and of course, two of the pivotal figures would indeed be Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Although Goldwater undoubtedly sowed the seeds, Reagan was extremely important in setting the wheels of the decimation of the middle class into motion, as well as planting the seeds into the American mental fabric that government is always the enemy and never should help people.
And of course, America loves its fictions, and much of the Reagan persona is indeed that – a fiction. The cowboy, the optimistic ‘morning in America’ nonsense, and all the other stuff continuously overshadows the destructive policies, the clueless dolt, and the scandal.
Mark Karlin, editor of Buzzflash, wrote a great editorial the other day about the Reagan myth, and how he had hoodwinked the working class into voting against its own interest, and how this ties into the non-story of Obama’s “bitter” comments. In it he discusses how right from the get-go, Reagan was a tool for corporate America’s interests, yet was able to win over working class voters with his folksy charm. And regarding that manufactured outrage against Obama’s comments:
What Obama said was shorthand for this grim reality: no one is really threatening the traditions of hunting, or anyone’s faith, or heterosexual marriage. But there are plenty of politicians among the Republicrats — usually the Republicans, but Hillary Clinton has joined with them on this one — who exploit the fear that conspiratorial “leftist” forces are conspiring to end hunting and religious belief in America. This is the heart of being a demagogue, because it is an appeal to emotion that has no basis in fact. It is how Republicans have won many an election, and how Senator Clinton is now trying, in a last gasp, to obtain the office she has compromised so much of her life pursuing…
But, in the end, as he did with race, Obama is touching upon a third rail of truth that neither party wants to discuss much. The “K Street Lobbyists” are very pleased with the masquerade and demagoguery that achieved, and now accelerates, the slide of the middle class towards a lower class fate.
The working class will have its faith, hunting, and small town “values,” but it can’t have them if they don’t have jobs.
How true this is. Of course, the cons will bitch and moan that indeed we’re being elitist, or we just don’t understand their principles, that the religion and narrow definition of ‘freedom’ are important to them, so they vote the way they do. Yet they still fail to realize the big swindle, in that for the most part, none of those freedoms are threatened to begin with. And they somehow believe that cutting the taxes at the top benefit the ones at the bottom, even though the evidence that this is not true is all around them. There’s something mind-boggling about hearing a person struggle to make ends meet defend the perks and advantages given to the super-rich and the corporatists. So many of their principles stand on a foundation of falsehoods, myths and thoroughly discredited ideologies, and when you claim their just parroting Rush or the latest right-wing talking points, they’ll deny it, claiming those thoughts as their own and passing their groupthink off as somehow individualistic and original. Now I’m not saying our side is perfect or flawless, but at least we get it.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I’m sorry JD, but what Obama said was not a “non-story”…it was just plain stupid. I understand the frustration that Howard Dean has expressed in the past about large parts of the country that were apparently voting against their own economic self-interest…this is a huge challenge for Dems. They lost the South after they made the right moves on Civil Rights.
However, speaking in the way that Obama has merely alienates the very people people that he is trying (ham-handedly) to reach out to. Potentially putting a big state like PA in play for the GOP this fall by pissing off a huge amount of the people that live in the central part of that state is big mistake IMO. I know that part of the state very well. People there go to pee-wee football games on Friday nights, college or high school football games on Saturday, and church on Sunday…and they all have an equal meaning in their lives. The love the outdoors too. I’m not defending that type of behavior, but it is a reality there.
In a state where Dems outnumber Republicans by some 2-to-1, a good national candidate needs to do well there…and not just in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. What Obama said recently is almost certainly going to doom him in PA this time around, and, I’m sorry to say, the fact that he is a black man isn’t going to help him in many parts of central PA either.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Well, I understand where you’re coming from, but as this thing settles, and the media frenzy subsides, they’re finding out that it’s not hurting Obama and people they’re talking to, many agree with him, that they indeed have plenty to be bitter about. Sure, it could have been said differently, and we know what he meant, but it by and large (like the lousy bowler or the “he asked for orange juice instead of coffee “stories”), by this is a pundit-created pile of steaming shit.
What’s really interesting about the whole Obama thing is that he seems to deal with these things quite well, such as the Wright controversy and such by not waiting, and coming back and addressing the issues directly, and try as the pundits do, theyre’ not controlling the narrative to the extent that they used to. It’s almost like parts of th country are starting to pull their collective heads out of their asses, where many have been keeping them since 9/11.
What he was trying to address (and admittedly, botched) was the truth that the GOP has been suckering the working-class for years by getting them up in arms about hot-button issues, while screwing them royally on the economic ones. Vote to stop gay marriage, get a capital gains tax cut. Vote to stop tougher gun laws, get an end to the estate tax or a write-off of Hummers. And so on.
A lot of these social issues are going to have to be dealt with, and that’s the challenge. We’re hopefully becoming a more enlightened and equitable society, so pandering to the Godnuts is really a losing battle in the long run. Dems just need to find better ways of framing things.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Well, there are certainly plenty of reasons to be fed up these days…from both sides of the political spectrum.
I find that it’s hard to talk to the people that are overly concerned about keeping their guns for self-protection and/or hunting. They feel a deep mistrust of any attempt at what, I think, most people would call “common sense gun control”, and instead view it as an backdoor attempt to take away the guns that they feel that they need so desperately.
Same thing with the “wearing your religion on your sleeve” thing…I don’t think that most Dems can “out God” a whole lot of Republicans. It’s a real pain in the ass IMO…if the economy is good, I think that a lot of these issues become much more fringe issues.