Voices from under the bus

One of the things I've been doing while I was off line is trying to put my finger on exactly why it is that I -- who have been talking for months about how utterly vital it is to avoid another Republican administration -- now find it so hard to stomach voting for the Democratic nominee.

There is, to begin with, the matter of foreign policy and national security, always something of a concern when contemplating a Democrat as Commander in Chief. It wasn't until this that I became completely comfortable with Hillary Clinton on that score. I'm still not comfortable with Obama, partly because his record suggests that his statements are, shall we say, not always a reliable guide to his actual intentions.

Then there's the whole Wright/TUCC issue. Does Obama find rabid America-bashing and anti-white racism to be acceptable? There's no sign of that in his own statements, but if he doesn't, then why did he take as his spiritual mentor, for most of his adult life, a man who preached those things? Why did he attend that man's church for equally long? If I were religious, I would not stay for even a moment in a church whose preacher talked about blacks the way Wright talked about whites. If a white politician did have such an intimate, lifelong connection with such a preacher, black voters (and white voters with a conscience) would have every right and reason to view that politician with great suspicion.

It's also striking that so many Obama supporters on the internet seem incapable of addressing Clinton supporters except in the language of scorn, reprimand, and insult. Watching Obama trolls in action in the comments section of almost any pro-Clinton blog will confirm this. Clinton supporters wouldn't be human if we didn't feel increasingly alienated from the Obama camp by this. The relentless sexism and misogyny aimed at Clinton during the campaign (documented for months at sites like this one and this one), and the failure of Obama and most of his supporters to condemn it or even acknowledge it, also rankles.

But none of those points is the thing that really bothers me about Obama and what he represents. To get at that main issue, let me point again to this article from May, which I already linked to here.

[T]he Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of "change" - nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desira-ble, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom "progressive" pundits and bloggers disdain variously as "Nascar man," "uneducated," "low information" whites, "rubes, fools, and hate-mongers" who live in the nation's "shitholes."

Obama's campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge that these voters consider him weaker -- and that Clinton's positions, different from his, as well as her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who, the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core Democrats from Obama's campaign.

Gallup figures presage a Democratic disaster among working-class white voters in November should Obama be the nominee. Yet Obama's handlers profess indifference - and, at times, even pride -- about these trends.

Everyone knows there is truth in this. During the primaries it was commonly observed that Obama and Clinton were emerging as the choice of "wine track" and "beer track" Democrats respectively. But we don't like to talk explicitly about class or even admit it exists in our country. As commenter "The Chaplain" ironically observed on my earlier posting, "The concept of "Class" is so European, my dear. It's an issue that Americans want to believe doesn't apply to us. We are (allegedly) the great meritorious society full of Horatio Algers." What makes the quotes above unusual is their bluntness.

This is ugly. Very ugly.

My head is still saying that a Republican Presidency would be bad for the country. My heart is starting to say that the Democrats don't deserve to win if they're going to do it like this, by beating down the very people they should be championing and allowing a lot of rather nasty, shallow, and bigoted types to revel in triumph over them.

In the primaries of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc., these rural and working-class Americans were struggling to make their voices heard -- to a party which is turning away, to an activist base which gleefully dismisses them as yokels or hillbillies or even racists, to a commentariat (in the MSM and blogosphere alike) which brushed aside millions of votes with the dismissive bleat of "it's over". The message is clear: We don't care what you think, we can win without you.

Is this healthy for our country? Can it be good for our country that the party which is supposed to stand up for the interests of the working class against the party of privilege, now brushes off the working class as a dispensable distraction from its glitzy and flashy "new coalition"?

The situation reminds me of the disgusting and Orwellian "debate" over illegal immigration. Illegal immigration mostly benefits business interests and the wealthy, so it is hardly surprising to see the Republican establishment favoring it, as with President Bush's enthusiatic support for the amnesty bill last year. What is shocking is the Democratic party's attitude. Illegal immigration mostly damages the interests of unskilled and semi-skilled American workers -- the very people the Democrats should be standing up for. Yet the party prefers to play ethnic politics, and call everyone who opposes illegal immigration nasty names. If you want the United States to enforce the same control over immigration that every other country on Earth takes for granted, then you are a racist, a xenophobe, and all manner of other repellent things.

So where do you turn, when what was once your party can ignore your voice in choosing its Presidential nominee -- because they have cherry-picked enough yuppies, college kids, and yearlings to drown you out?

Then there is the matter of the other major Clinton-leaning demo-graphic: women, especially older women. The party establishment seems to view them as nothing but an obstacle, and an easily-surmountable one at that, to the Obama coronation. The immense historical significance of electing our country's first woman Presi-dent -- especially in the eyes of those who actually experienced the struggles for female equality which today's twentysomethings are too young to remember -- is unworthy of mention. They are old and therefore out of touch, old and therefore probably racist, and that explains everything.

So, as I asked above, where can these two insulted and rejected constituencies turn? There is an obvious answer: they can turn to McCain. Blue-collar and rural voters in the rust-belt swing states have historically been open to both Democratic and Republican appeals, finding the former more willing to defend their economic interests but the latter, in many ways, less culturally alien. That's why those states are swing states. The Democratic party's current tack seems almost calculated to drive these voters into the arms of McCain, who is no fool and did not build a 22-year Senate career by insulting people whose votes he needs and has a solid chance to get. The feminist contingent's options are less clear, but my sense from the blogosphere is that their anger and disappointment are intense -- perhaps intense enough to help shift the political course of the nation.

But wouldn't a McCain Presidency be a disaster? I'm no longer so sure. McCain is not a typical Republican, as many conservatives' deep unease with him demonstrates. Unlike Bush, he supports stem-cell research. He recognizes the reality of anthropogenic global warming and favors serious action to combat it. The biggest issue is, of course, Roe vs. Wade and the Supreme Court, but even there, McCain may not be as bad as we think. And Democrats will surely strengthen their dominance in the Senate this year. They should be able to block extremist judicial nominees.

I would far rather see Hillary as President, but I'm starting to feel that I could accept McCain. And I'm starting to feel that I couldn't accept Obama -- not when his victory would mean the vindication of his "new politics" and of the tactics which were used against Hillary. A McCain Presidency would be an acceptable price to pay, if it meant defeating those tendencies and getting the party back on track.

The Democratic party establishment and too many of Obama's followers have betrayed the people whom the party is supposed to represent. They need to be punished, and the party brought back into line. It is as simple as that.