Bitter Medicine

The effort to spin Obama’s comments about the bitterness of Pennsylvania voters continues. A skillful dissection of the differences between what Obama said and what he now says he was trying to say can be found in the National Review Online. The NRO piece by Victor Davis Hanson is ominously titled “Why Orwell Matters.”

Hanson compares Obama’s original comments in California, such as the line in which the Democratic candidate talked about voters clinging to “guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them.” Hanson compares these characterizations to Obama’s later explanation in which “clings’ and “antipathy to people are not like them” is translated into less frank language. Hanson writes, “[n]ote how version #1's "cling" becomes version #2's "vote about" and "take comfort from"—as the condescending dismissal becomes empathetic understanding.” Hanson continues, “[n]ote how version #1's "religion" and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" becomes version #2's "faith" and "their family and community" —as fundamentalist xenophobes now become beleaguered folks who band together against the unfairness.”

Though Hanson goes on to other passages, the above will suffice to make my point here. The ominous title is surely meant to suggest that Obama is now employing “doublespeak” to disguise his true meaning, which according to Hanson (to say nothing of Clinton and McCain), was that Pennsylvania’s working class voters are “fundamentalist xenophobes” who are eager to blame immigrants and gays for all their problems. This type of analysis of Obama’s remarks will get a great deal of attention and will probably do some damage to Obama, though not enough to derail him.

The interesting thing here is that Hanson’s version of Obama’s “lapse” as well as what Hanson wants readers to see as Obama’s elitism sneaking out, is totally unreasonable. Moreover, it is clearly Hanson, and many other Obama critics, who are employing “doublespeak” in this case.

Let’s apply Hanson’s technique to his own prose. Hanson’s translation of Obama’s comments about religion and antipathy toward others not like them into “fundamentalist xenophobes” is completely arbitrary. Had Obama used the fuzzier language of his later explanation in the first instance, Hanson would no doubt have translated his comments with equal zeal and the same pajoritive spin. Hanson’s argument is an exercise in projection. He is the Orwellian trying prop up a prefabricated frame of Obama with some punchy reverse engineered distortions. Painting Obama as an elitist in a field with the son of admirals and the daughter of wealthy Illinois Republicans is absurd. They know this, but they also know that Bush-Cheney 04 turned a highly decorated war hero into a dangerous dove, and that unless he is significantly weakened, Obama’s momentum will likely take him to the White House.

While Hanson implies that he is trying to back track on his comments, in fact, Obama has done no such thing. The truth of his observations is manifest in both his initial frank assessment as well as his later more diplomatic, poll tested, version. At the end of the day, everyone knows that he is speaking the truth, whether it’s about white racial anxieties or the frustrations of working class voters. This is what separates Obama from his rivals; his so-called “lapses” are only lapses in a political campaigning 101 sense. Obama’s allegedly inappropriate comments have the virtue of truth, a virtue that most recognize even if they consider the comments inappropriate or politically unwise. McCain and Clinton are using this elitist argument to knock Obama down a peg or two. But what they really hope is that this faux frenzy will knock him off his game and cause him to pull his punches and to avoid these observations that end up revealing profound and previously politically dangerous realities.

Here’s the thing about Obama; when he talks to people he is clearly thinking and authentically engaging with his listeners. When Clinton, McCain, or most other politicians deviate from the script their “gaffs” reveal many things good and bad, but rarely if ever truly thoughtful engagement and intellectual courage. For Obama, his so-called gaffs reveal the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They create space for serious debate; a space Clinton and McCain are desperately now trying to fill with distortions and false indignation.

This election will truly be a test of character and courage for the very voters now being bombarded with hollow praise and false promises. For these voters, the truth could set them free. The question is; will they have the patience and courage to see the truth and vote for it?