class hatred is real

Anglachel's Journal has a really excellent post called the Whiteness of the Whale:

The violent rejection of the Clintons on the Left is a rejection of “The South” and the working class by the Stevensonian elite, who see the success of Bill the “Bubba” as both a threat to their power and a repudiation of their policies and actions since 1968. They want to see themselves as simultaneously co-victims with AAs of white supremacy and also as the moral(istic) saviors of the oppressed, redeeming their part of the white population from the sin of racism. (Read the incomparable Bob Somerby’s write up of this phenomenon in his latest post.) Bill Clinton provided a different vision of how to move the party and nation forward, one that refused demonization, and this shook them to their ineffective foundations.

That link (embedded in the quote) has some really good stuff too:

...let’s get clear on what the Times did: They sent a reporter to Tarheel towns to get the views of African-Americans. (Good!) And they sent a reporter to Broad Ripple to get the views of upscale whites. (Good again!) But what did the Gotham paper do to get the views of less affluent whites? Simple! Instead of interviewing such rubes, they simply asked the swells to speak for them! This produced a pleasing second-hand view: Low-income whites, with their racial bad faith, may well be swayed by this story!

This "speaking for me" phenomenon has happened a lot during this campaign. It happened during Obama's beautiful speech, too. He spoke on behalf of working class whites - telling the world something of who we supposedly are and what we supposedly want. He used the opportunity to redefine us, away from the grievances we want heard, such as affirmative action policies that take too much from us and give society too little benefit in return. (If affirmative action really works so well, why is there still poverty today? Why aren't we allowed to ask that question? I have a funny feeling it does not reflect well on Rev. Wright - or his new 10,000sf house.)

In the new, revised view, our grievances are with outsourcing and corporations. We just don't understand the situation fully, is all. (Or so we're told.)

And we aren't qualified to have an opinion because, let's face it, we're uneducated. After decades of scholarships being earmarked for 'need' (meaning 'any color other than white') or 'merit' (meaning 'went to a private day school'), we who are neither black nor rich largely get our education from two-year colleges, vo-tech programs, and especially the military. We are therefore not qualified to have an opinion on anything, but especially not on questions such as whether safety net and poverty prevention programs should or should not be labeled "whites need not apply".

I think most people want to underestimate the contempt middle+ class America has for its working class. I know class is entirely behind my...shall I say bitterness toward Obama - not because he is upper class but because of the attitude he promotes toward working class.

I've said before and will no doubt say again: to claim that middle America hates Democrats because they are smart makes about as much sense (and follows the same logic) as Republicans saying "they hate us for our freedoms".

And that when Obama talks about race, he emphasizes the 'complexity' of the black experience - but he reduces working class whites down into simple, caricatured stereotypes, and so do most of what Anglachel calls "Stevensonian" Democrats. And it is only one of many stereotypes to assume that if we are poor, we must be stupid; 'cream naturally rises to the top', it is said - so even the smartest self-educated person must be inferior to even the lowest, drunkest frat boy.

My family worked to get our kids out of their inner city elementary school into an affluent, upper middle class high school*. I tell you what, I was ASTONISHED the first time the principle mocked me to my face. It was a shock to my belief that educators - or Americans in general - mostly agree with and approve of "all men are created equal", and all students deserve equal rights, equal opportunities - a fair chance. There is no pretending that low income types like me are welcome - or even human. They see us as lesser, and they don't bother to hide it. And the students take the cue from their parents.

And when a wealthy kid misbehaves, it is made out to be some lower income kids' fault, and I see the same logic that is being used in this Obama campaign. It is sort of like normal logic, only - like the Pirates of Penzance - certain assumptions are embedded. Not open to challenge. All Brits love their queen.

Meanwhile, my kids are pressured to conform - and after all, isn't that the point? Admittedly it usually happens at college, not high school - since high school is usually about being with your own kind, and it is the college you go to determines your social grouping.

So I agree wholeheartedly with Anglachel's post. While I am sure there are other things going on in this election, I think it is absolutely true that class and scapegoating is at the root of Clinton hatred. If you are going to stand 'outside' and pretend that YOU are not responsible for America's sins, then who is?
_______________________
*interesting side note: that while the inner city school we dealt with was largely all a single minority - with both whites and Latinos taking extraordinary actions to get out of those schools, even though there were rules in place specifically intended to make it difficult for whites to get out of black schools, and easy for blacks to get into white schools.

On the other hand. the affluent white school is not at all pure white. There are a variety of minorities - but not many blacks. The blacks who do get 'in' to a school of this sort are not what Rev. Wright would consider worthy of their blackness.

So, yeah, I think Michelle Obama is right - you do have to choose between your "blackness" and your being accepted by mainstream America. But you do not have to lose your "blackness" (whatever that means) to become wealthy in America, clearly.

It is also worth noting that while "blackness" appears to include some voluntary choice that is made (acceptance of a cultural code), "trashness" in the case of vulgar whites is based on something involuntary - mostly not having enough money to put up a good peacock's tail, to buy the right sort of clothes and car (see Karate Kid, first movie).

nefarious goings-on

The LA Times suggests the row with Rev. Wright might be Hillary's fault.

It seems a Hillary supporter was definitely involved the event organization. That means they have a legitimate excuse to use the word "nefarious" to describe the inherent deceitfulness of Clintons:

It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

There's something sort of infuriating - and sort of comical - about them trying to make Rev. Wright somehow be something...Hillary should be ashamed of?

Looking at today's politics page, though, I suppose they think they are generous to even mention Hillary's existence. I count over a dozen Obama headlines and a few brief mentions to the two of them - Obama and Hillary - down at the bottom of the page.

They do, however, provide full coverage of any/all donors and superdelegates who defect to Obama.

Which is still better than the NY Times, apparently. Am I missing it, or did they forget to include pro-Hillary bloggers in among the "liberal" (pro-Obama) and conservative bloggers, in their coverage of what is being said "out there"?

nuance

Reading about Olbermann's so-called apology I am reminded once again of the big difference between rich and poor this election cycle.

Those who benefit from this difference typically call it "nuance".

I call it what happens when powerful people are given the unlimited right to translate what other powerful people "really meant", for the purposes of manipulating the perceptions of less-powerful people.

The point is to justify what ordinarily would not be excused, of course.

No matter what comes out of someone's mouth, it can be argued that this isn't what he really meant - or, failing that, they can find some reason why the person is entitled to behave badly or say crazy things.

Strip away arguments about gender or race for a minute and you can see power being used according to rules no one would accept if the rules weren't deliberately being obscured. This sort of "nuance" involves the deliberate blurring of boundaries and categories, so as to confuse actions and relationships. The point of it is to get fuzzy about issues of responsibility.

For instance, Rev. Wright gets to say whatever he wants, however politically poisonous, because in the 1950s life was really bad for people like him. (And, anyway, we explained what he really meant. You gotta understand. Context. Context.)

How can you criticize what Rev. Wright said when Obama is our first black Presidential candidate and he explained it all on a great landmark speech about race?

And so on.

So it says in the news that Olbermann didn't mean to suggest offing anyone. I paused. I read. I came away convinced of the man's insincerity - I don't believe he's really apologizing for anything. Let other people explain what he meant.

But I did stop and check it out. I did say, whoa, maybe I was unfair. I am not so convinced of the man's guilt that I will not hear new evidence. Did I misunderstand?

The problem is, there was no new evidence. Nothing he said changed anything. He meant to say the world would be better off if this person were murdered and that is what he did. He meant to make Clinton smaller and weaker and vulnerable, and he did. He meant to convey a certain contempt for the decent and civilized processes by which we solve problems, suggesting instead that we should just go the short easy route and use brute force to get our way. The arguments for whether this is or isn't sexist are not what interest me here (though the arguments never hinged on what pronoun you used anyway, Mr. Olbermann).

This exposes a real gap between them and myself. They like to take spin and make things okay. It's not such a big deal if Obama hangs out with with guys who bombed the Pentagon. It's not such a big deal if Olbermann issues some sort of fatwah on Hillary Clinton.

People who actually have to pay the price when there are consequences call this "moral relativism" (or in the more rural areas it's called "what's wrong with them God-damned liberals"). It is a bad thing because it leads to people getting hurt. It leads away from the sort of world where people can assume other people are basically decent and trustworthy. It leads to deterioration of entire neighborhoods. It turns our good children into the sort of adults who get into trouble, real trouble.

Because, of course, it's all about class - poor people just don't get away with the stuff rich people get away with. Look at the uproar when Frey was caught exaggerating on A Million Little Pieces, and then compare that with how the wealthy get to behave - what's a little lie here or there? (Make no mistake: what the Frey uproar was about was class - someone trying to move up in the world was found unworthy. That he was also handy as a scapegoat for a nation increasingly enraged at moral relativism was just a bonus.)

This is the mechanism by which real justice is replaced with cliques and in-groups. It is what we call 'socialization' when we are explaining why people should not be allowed to homeschool their children.

People outside of the clique might be hammered for lying about Bosnia, while in-crowd boys are not hammered when they claim their parents met at Selma (of course he was just trying to cement his credentials with a certain crowd, don't you know?) But tomorrow Clinton could be 'in' while Obama is 'out' - it's all about who has power.

It is the opposite of one standard, consistently enforced - which is the basis of equality.

In the real world, you can't have 'anything goes' - if people disobey the rules, then rules don't mean anything, and what you get is 'crime and blight' (which liberals tell us is just a code word for race - apparently they think that crime is an essential part of being black).

Some of us were raised by mommas who didn't fall for those tricks - we learned from our mommas that when someone gets busted, they're busted. That's not just how the world works, but how it ought to work, because it's fair and because it keeps things peaceful. For those of us with such mommas, there are only two ways out of being busted:

1. new evidence proves the original charge was unfair (conviction overturned on appeal); or
   
   
2. new reasoning persuades or proves that the rules were bad rules to begin with and need fixing
   

That latter point is what happened when Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke. People realized that the rules we were living with were bad rules - sometimes rules really need to be changed. Sometimes people really do grow, and so do societies.

But Olbermann broke rules that don't need fixing. Our society would not be a better place if the discourse were lowered to the point where it became clearly okay to talk that sort of trash.

What you don't see on that list of ways to get out of being busted is
(3) nuance. That is not because poor people aren't sophisticated enough to understand the concept. It's just that we tend to think "nuance" is why liberals are responsible for screwing up this country in the first place. It wasn't their soaring goals of equality for everyone. It was their nasty habit of 'nuancing' criminals right on out of jail.