Obama’s ‘Other Wordly’ Gaffe
Who would have thought that Senators Obama and McCain would hold such similar views of the working class? Regardless of how you read Obama’s now-famous remark, McCain seems to be on the same page.
Anti-Obamites attack the Illinois senator for peddling a trite and superficial stereotype of working class people. If that’s what he did, the Arizona senator did much the same (though his words were reported as a slap at Obama and a defense of the working class). McCain said:
During the Great Depression there rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder, and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous nation on earth. They believed in this country. They revered its past, but most importantly they believed in its future greatness, a greatness they themselves would create in the faith that everything is possible in America.
That’s about as trite and superficial a history of mid-20th century America as you can find. The only difference is that Obama’s stereotype is rather unpopular in the working class, while many Americans in the working class- and indeed in all classes-are eager to believe McCain’s stereotype as if it were fact.
On the other hand, suppose Obama was offering a serious analysis of what happens when the political system keeps people’s buying power and economic prospects virtually flat for some three decades. A deeper look at his analysis reveals why McCain was confirming Obama’s view.
Consider the particular examples Obama gave of the dangerous results of bitterness: “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.”
What do all these examples have in common? All involve creating dualistic categories of us against them. In each case, “they” are blamed for “our” problems. In each case, the line separating “us” from “them” is considered so absolute that it cannot be crossed. So the mere existence of the line, and thus of the categories it creates, looks like evidence of an absolute order in society, one that can never be erased. It creates a reassuring sense that there are eternal truths creating an enduring structure for human life.
In the case of guns, the difference between shooter and victim is clear: One is expected to remain alive while the other ends up dead. You can’t get any more absolute than that. In the other cases, the line is less tangible, but for those who believe in it it’s no less absolute.
It’s especially revealing that Obama included religion in his list. Many scholarly views of religion suggest that it has such a powerful effect because its creeds, symbols, rituals, and myths create an image of a far more satisfying world-the world as it should be-which is held in creative tension with the frustrations of the world as it is. Indeed, one famous theory holds that “another world to live in” is what we mean by having a religion. And it’s common in religious studies to assume that people are most likely to turn to that “other world” when they are most pained by the ordinary everyday world.
The “other world” can take the form of some heaven or paradise, but it certainly doesn’t have to. It can be any imagined alternative to the world as it currently is. Even a very this-worldly society, but one where foreigners are kept out of “our” country, or the “lesser” people stay on their side of the tracks, or everyone is a free and responsible gun owner, can fill the bill.
A belief in this “other world” somehow compensates for the slings and arrows of this world, our theories say. The “how” is hotly debated among scholars. But most theories acknowledge one point that is especially important in times of rapid change: This world is frustrating because the change seems out of control. So the “other world” appeals precisely because its structure is believed to be eternal and absolutely unchanging.
That’s really all Obama said or implied. As a scholar of religion, I found his remark trite not because it’s a false or demeaning stereotype, but because it seems such an obvious no-brainer. It’s the kind of basic stuff we teach in our Intro courses all the time. That does not necessarily mean it is true; it’s just one academic approach among others. But there is nothing unusual or controversial about it.
Indeed, McCain’s supposed critique of Obama’s infamous remark showed just how true our theory might be. If Obama was offering a serious, albeit simplistic, Sociology of Religion 101 insight, McCain actually confirmed that his younger colleague got it right. McCain said, in effect, that the solid working-class folk who form the heart of America do live in an imagined world, where they all banded together to inflict righteous defeat, first on the depression and then on the fascists, and were rewarded for their virtue by coming to live in a nearly perfect society.
One key to McCain’s surprising success in the polls thus far is his skill at purveying this imagined history, which so many Americans of all classes are eager to believe in. For too many of us, the mid-twentieth century-before the rapid change of “the ‘60s” set in-has become the “other world” we yearn to live in, with its fantasy of keeping us forever “number one” and thus immune from change. Republicans have traded successfully on that fantasy ever since Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968. McCain is merely walking a well-worn path. And why shouldn’t he? It’s a path that has led to seven GOP victories in the last ten presidential elections.
From an academic religious studies viewpoint, Obama did make several mistakes. All of them help to explain why the tried-and-true Republican approach has done so well.
First, Obama omitted the most basic and dangerous binary dualism of all: the us against them of war. The classic case of working class and lower middle class people driven by poverty to embrace a war party is the Nazis, the case that McCain invoked as the classic evil “them” of U.S. history. Of course U.S. history itself is hardly free of this phenomenon. Hard-hat construction workers attacked peace demonstrators during the Vietnam war era, and then a decade later became “Reagan Democrats,” supporting the very policies that have kept their real wages nearly stagnant for so many years now.
Today, less than a third of voters identify as Republicans or conservatives, yet nearly half say they will vote for McCain, who has built his campaign around his support for the war. And more than half say they trust McCain most to do the right thing in Iraq. What socioeconomic stratum does this crucial swing vote come from? I’m still waiting for the pollsters to tell us.
Second, any religion scholar knows that the kinds of frustrations that breed such absolute dualisms go far beyond economics. Any kind of change that seems beyond an individual’s control can have the same effect. So people of any economic class may be drawn to the candidate who draws simplistic lines between “us” and “them” and promises that the difference will never be eased or blurred even one iota: No Surrender.
Third, religion scholars don’t think that frustrated people are interested primarily in explanations. Explanations help. But people are often more concerned to find ways to accept frustrations that are inexplicable, and to accept the fact that they may always be inexplicable. In painful times, people want to be convinced that there is some enduring foundation to life, which we’ll never understand but can always stand on, because it will never be washed away by the tides of historical change. Again, that favors the candidate who paints the most convincing picture of another world to live in, a fantasy of a social order beyond all change.
Obama is being pilloried for peeling back the fantasy just a tiny bit to offer the briefest glimpse of the socioeconomic and cultural reality beneath it. When he had a chance to elaborate (in a forum on faith, appropriately enough), he bowed to the political winds and tried to retract the substance of what he’d said.
But the cat is out of the bag and can’t be put back in. His words stirred up a broad debate about the issue he raised. Even if the debate generates much more heat than light, it’s still a good thing to have even a small ray of light shining on this undeniable reality-perhaps the most fundamental reality-of American politics.
Many people count on politicians to offer them images of another world to live in, a bulwark against the change that they fear will sweep them away. And many people cling to their religion for the same purpose, which saps religion of its rich resources for guiding change in more humane directions.
Those are obvious facts. We can imagine another world where politicians, mainstream journalists, and ordinary Americans feel totally free to acknowledge and discuss the facts openly. Maybe some day we will live in that other world. But it appears to be a long, long time before the dawn.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
Mr. Chernus: Very good article. Unfortunately, it can’t be condensed into a 30-second soundbite on CNN or rephrased as a “gotcha” question in a presidential debate, so it’s unlikely many people will see it. We appreciate it, though.
Nothing very new here. Marx already wrote more eloquently and concisely (remarkable for Marx) about this when he wrote:
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”
- Marx: Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843
Note that the remark “Opium of the people” has been grossly misinterpreted in the 20th century - by both opponents of Marxism and by promoters of athiesm - socialist of not. By “Opium” Marx meant “salve” or “pain reliever” - the common view of opiun of the 19th century. He did not mean “harmful addictive substance”. Knowing this, and seeing the complete context in which Marx used the phrase, it is obvious that Marx was not contemptuous of religion, but noted, sympathetically, that it serves an important role in making Capitalism’s miseries bearable to the working class.
So, a remark like this from Obama should excite a Marxist like myself, but then he turns around and expresses admiration for GHW Bush (and earlier, Reagan). Talk about a politician talking from two sides of their mouth, or what?
I still prefer OBAMA!
I still prefer Obama too! Probably because I’m not a fan of Marx, and perhaps because I am wholly satisfied that Obama was not intending (even subconsciously) to belittle anyone’s faith or re-define anyone’s reason for having their faith.
I am also trying to believe that we, the voters, will not be so stupid as to think that because Barack said “bitter” that we must run to the arms of Grandpa bomb-bomb McCain to have him console us with the virtues of flag pins. In short, I think the Obama movement is for real, has some substance, and likely won’t be de-railed on trifles as easily as some now think. We’ll soon see.
Sen. Obama should have used the word “embittered” instead of assigning the pejorative “bitter”. There are multitudes of embittered citizens for all of the reasons that he brought up, but “embittered” denotes that there was/is specific causation of this condition, namely the effects of bush-world on all but the rich-filth whereas calling a class of people “bitter” implies that it is their own damn fault.
Hopefully, many will realize this distinction and not run away to the McSame ticket. THAT would be a disaster.
What makes anyone think that there are any differences between the candidates.
My daddy said “follow the money” - and it is the same rich elite of this country that is financing all 3 - check it out. We all lose no matter which of the 3 wins. I think the Edwards draft suggestion is the best of bad choices for the Democrats.
He is the only candidate who constantly out-polled all GOP candidates - especially MacBush.
But sonce he supports labor, the rich elite could not buy him (or maybe they did to get him out of race).
This article makes some good points, but what rankled the Big Media and the GOP (and Hillary, who was searching like a hungry shark for something to hang on Obama) was exposing their game — trumpeted endlessly by the Right Wing Noise Machine — of blaming all of the economic woes and low wage jobs and small towns becoming centralized Wal-Martvilles with a depressing strip of fast-food Generica on the outskirts, on the stereotype ‘latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, gay-loving, liberal eltists.’
Only now, in my experience, the small town and rural types are waking up — after electing Republicans for the last three decades who were supposed to save them — to the fact that it is the GOP and their pro-corporatist policies who are destroying their towns and ruining their lives.
I don’t put much trust in the current polls showing McCain slightly ahead of the Dem candidates — after all, Hillary was up by 35 points six months ago — and the bitterness Obama spoke of, which he did not back down from later — he merely apologized for his poor choice of words, not his estimate of the situation — is real and festering, and I think the GOP will get a taste of it come November.
Daniel David: You are a democrat defender. Has the party succeeeded in replacing its incumbents with new people? Isn’t this important? What good is a party that supports collaborators, traitors and war criminals? Why hasn’t the party cleaned house? How can you support a party that keeps in place democratic incumbents who have failed so miserably to protect the constitution and the interests of the people? What good is this party of yours if it doesn’t change at a time of crisis? What is the point of continuing with the same gang of criminals? This party of yours is crap, just like the other one who will also present its criminal incumbents for reelection. The system is corrupt and the people are useless. Who cares who becomes president?
If Americans were fit for democracy, they would realize that the important races are the ones for congress. That’s why nobody talks about it. The people are not fit.
Mr David, will you please read my piece again? Maybe it’s vocabulary was too advanced.
To summarize, Marx wasn’t belittling anyone’s religion either, and he was clearer about the economic role of religion than either Prof. Chernus or Obama.
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium [i.e. salve, painkiller] of the people.”
THEY: McCain used this pronoun: “They believed in this country.” It is unconsciously but specifically chosen because “they” are not here and cannot contest what he said, as they could with Obama.
For that same reason the speech lacks political relevance to the audience. It has only cultural and emotional relevance, in other words, as propaganda. But for practical purposes, he might as well have been up there reading from “Lord of the Rings.”
WE: Obama usually uses this pronoun: “Yes we can.” It is also unconsciously but specifically chosen, in this case because it incorporates the speaker into the masses of the regular folk and makes “our” struggles “his” struggles. It is a lie, but it is the same lie that helped make JFK so charismatic.
Choose whatever pronoun you want, but political speech is still bulls**
SAFE RHETORIC IS MEANINGLESS RHETORIC
to lizard,
You have asked why the Democratic Party has not replaced its incumbents. The new (young, newly registered) Democrats are trying very hard to do exactly that with Barack Obama. If we can elect him, the old voices of the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others will be relegated to lower status behind a reformer. The “movement” would also tend to replace some old Democratic congressmen and senators with some new Democrats.
Believe me, us Democratic supporters are hoping for the “shift” in leaders and priorities. We just don’t want to stumble on it and go to McCain by accident.
to USAn,
Perhaps, as you say, your vocabulary is to “advanced” as you attempt to deploy it here on CD. The recently departed William F. Buckley also had a graduate-level way of talking down to everyone with lots of very big words and he actually fooled a lot of folks for half a century with that stilted style. He made conservatism sound wise and “elevated”—problem was, his points might have been more easily identified as the bull that they were if someone had translated them down to the way people actually talk.
VOTERS do not give a rat’s tushie about Karl Marx or anything he ever said. Nothing that Marx said either justifies or detracts from what Barack Obama is trying to do in the 21st century. Obama’s words and actions are not about Marx. Marx is dead. Marxism is dead.
Quoting Marx is the best way known to get voters, even liberals, to run away from you. (Me too.)
Marx’s analysis is more spot-on than Adam Smith or anyone elses ever was. Except Marx was over optimistic about Capitalism, since he didn’t consider it’s environmental impacts.
What do you propose replacing Capitalism with? Because, most decidedly, our survival depends on it being replaced.
Obama will change nothing - he is just a shill for the powerful. forget him.
Daniel David and others, it’s worth taking a look at a 1969 debate between Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley — Chomsky did just what you were mentioning.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1214894113898255184
USAn (April 18th, 2008 11:00 am): If we returned to the notion of ‘capitalism’ as practiced by Adam Smith and the Founders, we’d be in much better shape. They would have been appalled at unregulated corporations and ‘global free trade’ — in fact, they would have imposed heavy tariffs on any company that imported products or exported jobs to the detriment of the United States, and would have put them out of business if they tried to influence politicians inordinately. Today, they would be labeled ‘protectionists’ with that little Big Media Republican sneer in the intonation.
The current notion of capitalism is actually Milton Friedman’s entirely unregulated ‘wild west’ version of ‘free trade’ which, of course, is not really free — it’s in fact socialism for the elite, little different than the preservation of the aristocracy at the expense of the peasants as practiced by King Louis XVI or King George III in the past.
I disagree about Obama; I think if he’s elected he will commence major changes in the way this country conducts itself and treats it citizens, just as FDR did in the 1930s.
Besides, who else is there to vote for that won’t put ‘McNasty’ McCain in office?