Obama and "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

As everyone knows by now, presidential candidate Barack Obama was surreptitiously taped at a fundraiser in San Francisco last week, and an offhand remark he made has set off a firestorm of criticism--criticism that, to my mind, has been almost completely phony.


Here's what he said, reportedly in response to a questioner who said he was going to canvass for Obama in rural Pennsylvania, and wondered why Obama's "message of hope" had not always generated support in those areas: “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 antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” So the distinction was drawn between hope and bitterness.


On its face, this remark is perfectly true. The only problem is that it's inelegantly phrased, and can easily be spun into something that it isn't: an expression of elitism.


But the remark is inarguable. The success of the Republican party over the last 40 years has hinged on its ability to convince rural voters to ignore their own economic and social best interests and vote instead on so-called "wedge issues"--guns, gays, race, appeals to religious fundamentalism, anti-immigration sentiments, etc.--so that what was once known as the party of class privilege and big-business boosterism, the Republican Party, has instead been identified as the party of regular folks, rescuing the republic from latte-sipping elitists who look silly sitting in a tank or trying to bowl. The only way I would suggest for Obama to amend his remark is to say that these people are manipulated into having these sentiments, rather than that they cling to them, but that's a minor quibble.


The best diagnosis of the situation came in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas, a funny and compelling look at the last 100 years in Frank's home state of Kansas and in the country at large. It's a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their own life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their own land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People. It's the history of a backlash against a Left that doesn't exist anymore except in the fever dreams of right-wing radio.


In addition to plugging Frank's book, I would also like to make an argument in favor of elitism.

First, let me say that none of the presidential candidates made it to where they are without being exceptional. They are all part of America's elite, in any meaningful sense of that term. Being part of an elite is only a problem if you look down on other people; otherwise, it's desirable.

Second, why shouldn't America have the best? Do you want a president who can bowl or toss back shots with the boys, or do you want a president who might actually be great at the job? If you're hiring a plumber or a painter, you don't quiz them on when their daddy taught them to hunt. You quiz them on their professional abilities. Should we not have the same standard when it comes to choosing the Leader of the Free World?


The problem is that in suggesting we hire the best for the job, the idea becomes twisted into "he thinks he's better than we are." ... Well, I am perfectly willing to concede that Obama is a better constitutional scholar and has far greater political skills than I. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Hillary Clinton has a firmer grasp of foreign affairs than I do, and that John McCain would be better at pushing legislation through Congress. Does all this make me bitter? Nope. I don't want to do my own plumbing either.