(I think I've mentioned this issue once before) Rare it is when columnists mention one another's arguments. There seems to be some kind of agreement that you can't mention another columnist by name (although I seem to remember George Will doing this to Krugman once). So imagine my surprise when I read Harold Meyerson this morning. He writes:
This year, we can expect to see almost nothing but these kinds of assaults as the campaign progresses. The Republican attack against Obama all but ignores the issue differences between the candidates to go after what is presumably his inadequately American identity. He is, writes one leading conservative columnist, "out of touch with everyday America." His reluctance to wear a flag pin, writes another, shows that he "has declared himself superior to an almost universal form of popular patriotism."
The first quote is Charles Krauthammer, the second Michael Gerson (we talked about it the other day). In fairness to the columnists, who both write for The Washington Post, Meyerson ought to give more context. If he did, he'd be unable to argue that they assert these things themselves. Rather, they merely observe the fact that others will assert them. First Krauthammer:
It wasn't until late in the fourth quarter that she found the seam in Obama's defense. In fact, Obama handed her the playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America and Obama's own guns-and-God condescension toward small-town whites.
The line of attack is clear: not that Obama is himself radical or unpatriotic, just that, as a man of the academic left, he is so out of touch with everyday America that he could move so easily and untroubled in such extreme company and among such alien and elitist sentiments.
Clinton finally understood the way to run against Obama: back to the center — not ideologically but culturally, not on policy but on attitude. She changed none of her positions on Iraq or Iran or health care or taxes. Instead, she transformed herself into working-class Sally-get-her-gun, off duck hunting with dad.
He's talking about Clinton, hardly a Republican. Whether Krauthammer's account of Hillary's position is true is another story. He certainly doesn't think it's true to call Obama unpatriotic. But he doesn't really care. Now Gerson:
The problem here is not that Obama is unpatriotic — a foolish, unfair, destructive charge — but that Obama has declared himself superior to an almost universal form of popular patriotism. And this sense of superiority, revealed in case after case, has political consequences, because the Obama narrative reinforces the Democratic narrative. It is now possible to imagine Obama at a cocktail party with Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, sharing a laugh about gun-toting, Bible-thumping, flag-pin-wearing, small-town Americans.
Gerson doesn't care either. Meyerson would have a stronger argument had he directed it at the media types who will repeat these charges in just the way Krauthammer and Gerson have. Sure, they argue, they're not true. But still, will everyday, real Americans–who apparently have no regard for the truth and don't read Gerson or Krauthammer–be convinced by them?
After all, if everyday Americans read Gerson and Krauthammer, they'd know that such charges are baseless. Wouldn't they?
“The problem here is not that Obama is unpatriotic — a foolish, unfair, destructive charge…” Isn’t this some kind of apophasis, paralipsis maybe?
jcasey, I think the most damaging claim is that Obama is ” out of touch with everyday America “. And yes, media does blows it out of proportions. However, I would not go as far as you and call them “baseless”. After all, in WV, more than half of the Democrats said Mr. Obama did not share their values. And that’s around the same numbers as in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.
BN,
First, I’m not the one calling the charges baseless–that’s Gerson and Krauthammer;
Second, I bet you can’t support the second claim about “shared values”;
Third, Obama has won more votes (of all types than Clinton)–more than half of democrats so far have voted for him (and your numbers are off);
Fourth, does that mean they “share his values”? Maybe. But it definitely means they supported his candidacy.
None of this, of course, was the point of the post. Since it apparently wasn’t clear, my point was that Krauthammer and Gerson have called a view of Obama groundless and false (if not worse) but then wonder whether Everyday Americans will believe it. That seems to imply that real Americans don’t care about things that are true–because if they did, Krauthammer and Gerson might be clamoring tell them.
Hey Dagon,
Paralipsis probably–but without the added denial that he isn’t even going to say it. But maybe there is a more precise rhetorical figure–
thanks for bringing that up.
jcasey,
“First, I’m not the one calling the charges baseless–that’s Gerson and Krauthammer;”
– since you did not rejected their claim, I assumed you agree with them; anyway, you are right, you did not make that claim.
Second, I bet you can’t support the second claim about “shared values”;
– here is what I said: “in WV, more than half of the Democrats said Mr. Obama did not share their values”. You can find the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/14cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
the specific quote from there: “Still, there is a pattern of weakness that has shadowed Mr. Obama as he has marched his way toward winning his party’s nomination. Even accounting for the fact that West Virginia may have been the toughest state he has faced, the contours of Mr. Obama’s defeat were daunting: more than half of the Democrats said Mr. Obama did not share their values…”
“Third, Obama has won more votes (of all types than Clinton)–more than half of democrats so far have voted for him (and your numbers are off);”
– my numbers? I only made claims about Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.
Yes, I understand the point of your post. Please read again the end of Meyerson’s article. He just concludes that article by pointing out that to some people being “American” is synonymous with “white” and “Christian.” This is not “the real Americans” as you describe them, it’s just a “portion of our population”. Not only that, but they are a “portion of our population for which “American” is synonymous with “white” and “Christian,” than any national campaign has been since the American Party (also known as the Know Nothings) based its 1856 campaign chiefly on Protestant bigotry against Irish and German Catholic immigrants.”
In conclusion, here is how I see his argument going:
– There are claims that Obama is not a patriot.
– Obama is a patriot.
– For a portion of population that is based on bigotry, being patriot equates with being white and Christian.
– Even though, Obama is a true patriot, the claims of him not being a patriot will resonate true to a portion of the population that equates being patriot with being white and Christian.
– depending on the size of this portion, it could be the determining factor in winning the elections.
– McCain will try to get them on his side and win the elections.