Balkinization: Welcome to the Nineteenth Century

Comments:

One might think that in 2008, knowing something about the politics and pathologies of urban life might be a better qualification for the presidency than the capacity to shoot a moose.

Frankly, I'm tired of law professors sharing their political opinions with me. But anyway, knowing something about urban life is a better qualification for the presidency than moose-hunting - to those who live an urban or even affluent suburban life. Obama does great with those voters. For those who live in areas where moose or deer hunting are common, however, moose hunting - which is just a metonymy for a whole way of life - is a better qualification. A little self interested and myopic, yes, but that's the way people are. Also, you're really making a false dichotomy here. It's not knowledge of urban life vs. moose hunting, it's knowledge of urban life vs. knowledge of small-town/rural life. Now, Obama knows a little about rural life too, I suppose - he's all for wasteful ethanol subsidies, which shows some sensitivity to corporate farmers' interests, and spends plenty of time hanging out with his country bumpkin constituents from Archer Daniels Midland - but as evinced by those famous 'bitter' comments, his attitudes towards this part of America are condescending at best. As for Fred, I don't take him to be making any sort of absolute claim about the relative value of a small-town upbringing vis-a-vis an urban one; he's just making an appeal to the base, which does primarily reside in smaller towns.

# posted by

Asher : 3:34 AM

"...good deal of his time..."

Less than a minute, I think. Here's the transcript.

# posted by

Chris : 7:20 AM

I suspect that it's possible to know about the pathologies of urban life without partaking of them. The reason rural politicians appeal to people who aren't urbanites isn't because we think they're ignorant of urban life, it's because we think that some of what urbanites think of as the advantages of urban life ARE pathologies in our opinions.

# posted by

Brett : 7:39 AM

The divide between the values and pathologies of the urban and near urban areas versus the rest of the country is the basis for our cultural and political divide.

Indeed, that difference is pretty starkly illustrated at its extremes by contrasting Obama's city work organizing protests by government dependents against a government bureaucracy and Palin's rural work running a small fishing business.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:37 AM

Actually, what is meant by "small-town America" in this case is a suburb of Anchorage. (Fully 1/3 of the population works in Anchorage. Correct for children and spouses, and you get the picture.)

The delusion of the suburbanites (only one of many delusions) that they live out in the great open spaces, and share the noble ideals of the founding fathers has been discussed before at Balkinization.

Since the primary purpose of the suburbs is to leach the benefits of city living while avoiding having to pay the costs to support the city, they are natural Republican strongholds, and the "small-town America" reference is a dog-whistle for their ears.

# posted by

C2H50H : 9:06 AM

Bart writes:contrasting Obama's city work organizing protests by government dependents against a government bureaucracy

Can you provide more information, as in links perhaps? Who were the "government dependents" and who were the bureaucrats?

Palin's rural work running a small fishing business.

Is that anything like her car wash business?

# posted by

John : 10:37 AM

Bit:

Palin and her hubby had a minority stake in a car wash which they did not control or manage.

However, please by all means keep up the smears against Palin. I have not seen the GOP this motivated since 2004.

Even Obama and Biden were smart enough to steer well clear of this kind of petty and counterproductive mud slinging, but their followers apparently are not. Works for me.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:06 AM

From the outside looking in, the thing which strikes me about the McCain selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is that it demonstrates the extent to which the Republican Party has been infiltrated by persons belonging to the lunatic fringes of religion.

In my youth the Republican Party was seen as "more" to the right than the Democratic Party, but still a "broad church" seeking to appeal to a majority of the electorate.

It seems that it was necessary for McCain to nominate a person with Ms Palin's extreme religious beliefs as a sop to his party activists who share the same beliefs she appears to hold: as witness her address to her local church on 8th June 2008: Huffington Post page with video Apparently the Church's web-site has been taken off-line such is the interest.

I do not have access to the US equivalents of the kind of actuarial tables we use in the UK to assess life expectancy for the purposes of computing personal injuries awards, but assuming the survival rates are comparable, there seems to be a 15-20% possibility that McCain (who is 72 and has had previous episodes of Melanoma) will not survive his first term in office, so there is a significant risk that Mrs Palin could become the next US President but one: A Messianic with Nukes - No thanks.

It is perhaps a very great pity that the US 'rapture ready' mob who are the spiritual descendants of the teaching of John Nelson Derby do not follow the rules devised for the UK sect he founded: BBC Pages on the Exclusive Brethren

# posted by

Mourad : 11:10 AM

steer well clear of this kind of petty and counterproductive mud slinging, but their followers apparently are not. Works for me.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:06 AM

Do you even bother to read your own blog? Physician, heal thyself!

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:10 AM

"The low salience of urban American may best be highlighted by evidence that no one thinks Senator Obama's experiences as a community organizer in Chicago are that relevant to his qualifications for the presidency."

I'm not sure about that. Giuliani's work cleaning up NYC was his basic qualification. It's just that Obama didn't actually clean up Chicago.

# posted by

Chris : 11:15 AM

Giuliani's work cleaning up NYC was his basic qualification.

It wasn't that he was the mayor of New York City on 9/11?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:19 AM

"It wasn't that he was the mayor of New York City on 9/11?"

Not among serious people, no, I don't think so. At any rate, that was urban administrative experience too.

# posted by

Chris : 11:27 AM

At any rate, that was urban administrative experience too.

# posted by Chris : 11:27 AM

He probably should have campaigned on that instead of the 9/11 mayor thing.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:33 AM

What I was saying is that "the 9/11 mayor thing" was urban administrative experience. I'm not saying Giuliani's perfect or anything, just that his candidacy suggests the importance of urban issues in contemporary political culture.

# posted by

Chris : 11:39 AM

Mourad:

Here is what Palin said at her church which Huffington Post and apparently you found so "extreme:"

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I am unsure about Muslims, but a majority of American Christians believe God has a plan for mankind and the individuals therein and pray for their leaders and soldiers in the field during war time.

If you are seeking "extreme" religious view points, perhaps you would like to go to youtube for a refresher course on Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years - the right Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Palin calls on God to bless our country while Wright calls on God to damn America.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:02 PM

Baghdad, only a complete lunatic could think that the invasion of Iraq was a task from God.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:06 PM

bb:

Christians generally believe that all things - good and bad - are part of God's plan.

I would like to think that liberating 23 million people is a task of which God, if not you, would approve.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:10 PM

Christians generally believe that all things - good and bad - are part of God's plan.

That may be, but only a complete fanatic would refer to the Disaster in Iraq as a task from God.

I would like to think that liberating 23 million people is a task of which God, if not you, would approve.

What does that have to do with the Disaster in Iraq?

In fact, if there is a God, I suspect that warmongering scum like you are in for a very rude surprise.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:38 PM

As usual, Bart De Palma has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

There can be nothing wrong in any religious leader praying that those in authority act rightly or for the welfare of military personnel set into harm's way, what I find objectionable is when politicians invoke the Almighty for purely secular purposes.

Such as when George Bush asserted that he had received personal revelation from the Almighty telling him to invade Iraq, or when in reference to the LNG Alaska pipeline project, Gov Palin said:-

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,"

How presumptuous - not to say blasphemous. One thing to pray that the Almighty inspire people to come to the right decision, to build or not - quite another to suggest that the Almighty is in favour of the project.

While I dislike fundamentalist preaching of any kind, that is a matter of taste and while Rev Wright's remarks may have upset some, the full text of the remark to which De Palma objects can be theologically justified.

# posted by

Mourad : 3:10 PM

However, please by all means keep up the smears against Palin. I have not seen the GOP this motivated since 2004.

The fundamental problem with Bart's predictions is he assumes that the Republicans can win this election by motivating the base.

In fact, they can't:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212852.php

McCain needs to MOVE TO THE CENTER. Like Richard Nixon. The Palin thing pleases the type of people who still love Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of them.

# posted by

Dilan : 6:02 PM

"Bart" DeFlacka:

[in response to a point about the Iraq war]: Christians generally believe that all things - good and bad - are part of God's plan.

What a wunnaful "Get Out Of Jail Free" card! It's all "Gawd's plan", so no one needs to feel bad or take responsibility.

BTW, I'm curious, "Bart": Do you think that maybe Voltaire was a closet RW fundie? Do let us know if you don't understand the question....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:25 PM

Wikipedia is really good for comparing life histories of candidates.

Obama, Presidential Candidate:
Graduated university.
Became community organiser.
Went to law school, got JD.
Became a practicing lawyer.
Became an academic in U Chicago.
Was a state senator.
Was a US senator.

Palin, V.P candidate:
Got a BSc.
Worked as a reporter.
Helped run or owned several small businesses.
Was a mayor.
Was a governor.

Read McCain's and Biden's life stories as well. Maybe even Harry Truman's. And we can click on link for more information, etc.

It's not surprising that many republicans and democrats, like this post author, want to talk about "values".

What the hell are "small town values"? Don't answer: it's meaningless psychobabble. Everyone is equally qualified in its analysis. At least in the title the author warned us readers that his post was using reasoning straight out of that era.

I'm just glad we live in the 21st century, where, with a few pushes of a button, we can find well vetted information that potentially renders any such discussion utterly moot. People running for office do not spend their lives contemplating their "values": they actually go out and do more or less notable things which can be analysed by the electorate and commentators, as is normally done on this blog.

# posted by

crf : 1:55 AM

Since the primary purpose of the suburbs is to leach the benefits of city living while avoiding having to pay the costs to support the city, they are natural Republican strongholds, and the "small-town America" reference is a dog-whistle for their ears.

Sigh. Once again: "dog-whistles" are things only dogs can hear. If you can hear it, and you're not the target audience, then it isn't a dog whistle. Please don't use metaphors that make no sense.

# posted by

David Nieporent : 2:38 AM

David Nieporent:

Sigh. Once again: "dog-whistles" are things only dogs can hear. If you can hear it, and you're not the target audience, then it isn't a dog whistle. Please don't use metaphors that make no sense.

Ummmm ... hate to point this out, but people can't hear dog whistles, yet they still call a dog whistle a dog whistle.

The metaphor is a perfectly good one, no matter how much you dislike its application here. Why don't you dispute its aptness instead of its provenance? Oh, right....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:58 AM

Bart writes:
which they did not control or manage.

I'd like to see your source on that - and please skip the "google it" nonsense. As long as you're taking up her cause, kindly explain the lack of reporting on her part.

# posted by

John : 1:33 PM

Ummmm ... hate to point this out, but people can't hear dog whistles, yet they still call a dog whistle a dog whistle.

Ummm... hate to point this out, but they don't call a dog whistle a dog whistle; they don't call it anything, because they don't hear it. You're confusing the physical thing that produces the sound with the sound itself.

The metaphor is a perfectly good one, no matter how much you dislike its application here. Why don't you dispute its aptness instead of its provenance? Oh, right....

No. The point is that the poster claims to be able to hear it. If he couldn't, he couldn't be commenting on it, because he wouldn't even know about it. Which makes it a bad metaphor.

# posted by

David Nieporent : 2:51 AM

The point is that the poster claims to be able to hear it. If he couldn't, he couldn't be commenting on it, because he wouldn't even know about it. Which makes it a bad metaphor.

The reason we know a dog whistle makes noise is that we can see the reaction of the dog.

I think the metaphor works perfectly well here, especially for the more Pavlovian Republicans.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:48 AM

David Nieporent:

Ummm... hate to point this out, but they don't call a dog whistle a dog whistle; they don't call it anything, because they don't hear it. You're confusing the physical thing that produces the sound with the sound itself.

No, I'm not. It doesn't matter whether the reference is to the device or the sound produced. We know about both the existence of such devices (we designed them, after all), and what they do. That is the point.

[Arne]: The metaphor is a perfectly good one, no matter how much you dislike its application here. Why don't you dispute its aptness instead of its provenance? Oh, right....

No. The point is that the poster claims to be able to hear it. If he couldn't, he couldn't be commenting on it, because he wouldn't even know about it. Which makes it a bad metaphor.

No. I don't have to be able to hear a dog whistle to blow one. Nor do I have to hear it to see or understand what happens when someone else does.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:47 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:47 AM

No, I'm not. It doesn't matter whether the reference is to the device or the sound produced. We know about both the existence of such devices (we designed them, after all), and what they do. That is the point.

Yes, we know about both those things, but we don't know when they're blown; that is the point.

No. I don't have to be able to hear a dog whistle to blow one. Nor do I have to hear it to see or understand what happens when someone else does.

You don't have to be able to hear a dog whistle to blow one, nor do have to hear it to "understand" in an academic sense what happens when someone does. But you do have to be a dog to actually hear it!

# posted by

David Nieporent : 4:45 PM

David Nieporent:

Yes, we know about both those things, but we don't know when they're blown; that is the point.

False. I already pointed that out.

You don't have to be able to hear a dog whistle to blow one, nor do have to hear it to "understand" in an academic sense what happens when someone does. But you do have to be a dog to actually hear it!

This is true. Nor did I say differently. Now exactly what was your point again?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:06 PM