Posted by
Ed Lilly on Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:21:03 PM
...then I may have an alternative take on this interesting contrarian opinion column by Larry Bartels. In the wake of Barack Obama's comments at a San Francisco fundraiser about small town residents being driven to God and guns as a result of despair over their position in the economic order, many commentators have focused on this slap in the face of the average Americans to whom they believe Obama seeks to appeal in order to win both the Democrat presidential nomination and the general election.
Mr. Bartels has a slightly different take on the episode, arguing that the relevant data show the reality of how small-town voters behave is exactly the opposite of what Obama told his millionaire campaign donors on Billionaire Row in San Fransisco. To wit, Bartels notes:
Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.
Bartels then goes on to cite various statistics from a 2004 National Election Study to buttress his argument that it is the liberal elites who are primarily influenced by social issues in voting rather than small-town, average Americans. He then goes on to compare Obama's likely election returns as opposed to John Kerry in 2004, and John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in 1960 and 1968, respectively:
Mr. Obama should do as well or better among [small-town, working-class] voters if he is the Democratic candidate in November. If he doesn't, it won't be because he has offended the tender sensibilities of small-town Americans. It will be because he has embraced a misleading stereotype of who they are and what they care about.
In thinking this through, however, I am not so sure Bartels' explanation for Obama's possible failure to garner the votes of small-town Americans is accurate. Certainly it's one possible explanation. But in reading the entire piece, and applying some common sense, I can think of at least one other possible explanation in the event Obama fails to get as many small-town votes as John Kerry.
First, given the information Bartels is citing is from a study conducted by the University of Michigan, I have to conclude that Obama's campaign has access to the same information, and is smart enough to be able to read it as well as Bartels.
Which leads me to conclude that Obama's smear of small-town voters was not voiced out of his embracing "a misleading stereotype of who they are and what they care about." Rather, I expect it is a cynical use of that misleading stereotype, which is most likely shared by Obama's millionaire donors, as a way of appealing to Obama's base of "cosmopolitan" voters, as Bartels defines them. Thus, I don't think Obama and his campaign are so dumb and/or misinformed that they believe what Obama said about small-town voters. I think they are smart enough to know that their San Francisco donors believe almost exactly what Obama said, and used that as a way to appeal to them and motivate them to contribute and network for the Obama campaign.
Moreover, my understanding is that Obama didn't expect his comments on small-town voters to be "on the record." Many commentators have cited this as further evidence that his remarks were more candid and revealing as he believed them to be private.
Perhaps. But again I have a nagging suspicion that Obama simply said these things in an attempt to appeal to his millionaire liberal pals. What was the saying, making them feel comfortable with their prejudices?
This conclusion doesn't make me think any more highly of Obama and his campaign, in any event. When the two most logical choices in this matter are that he and his campaign are so inept that they don't have any clue what motivates small-town voters, or they are so cynical that they would use knowingly false stereotypes to whip up support amongst their voter base, I don't see much to make me think there is anything new or transformative to this candidate.
As for another explanation in the event Obama fares poorly with small-town voters, it could be chalked up to the possibility that such voters know a phony when they see one, and aren't much inclined to vote for one. Unfortunately, Bartels' does not provide any indication of how Bill Clinton fared in 1992 or 1996 with his defined voters groups, so it is a difficult hypothesis to test.