Stickybuffalo.com

Over the weekend, The Economist‘s Lexington columnist wrote:

The political puzzle that Barack Obama and the Democrats need to figure out is just why such a large chunk of America’s white middle class appears to feel that American honour and values are in jeopardy, and why they appear to blame this president for this perceived danger…. Why is it so widely believed? … I am genuinely perplexed.

I actually didn’t even leave a comment, aside from one directed at another comment which was shockingly racist and hate-filled, at any rate by the standards which usually prevail at The Economist site. I kept thinking about the question, though, and over night (yes, crazies, you haunt me even in my sleep) came up with probably the closest to an answer I can suggest.

Then I woke up and found that our scruffy pal at The Times had already written up the idea for me. He pretty much got everything; the only thing I would have specifically added was to connect the fact that “a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals — even very moderate liberals — legitimate” with a complete “us vs them” mentality.

Democrats are seen as illegitimate because we’re “the enemy,” and we’re the enemy not because of anything we do but just because we aren’t part of their “us.” After all, these people didn’t give a fart about deficit spending, expanding government, reduced individual liberties, etc., etc., etc., so long as the role of the big tribe’s alpha male was occupied by their guy.

Call it identity politics, whatever you want, but that’s basically what’s going on. In the sense of some kind of “substantive” explanation in terms of issues, there’s nothing for Obama, et al. to “figure out.” These people don’t have genuine, rational grievances that Democrats can somehow “understand” and respond to; Democrats, ourselves, are their grievance.

And, really, what can be done about that? Krugman, per his usual pugilistic instincts, suggests that Obama basically needs to fight harder, “on the economic front in particular.” But, of course, Krugs is also by this point well aware that such encouragement to activity is likely to go unheeded.

Man, I really don’t know if I can stomach another out-for-blood reactionary congress…

I kind of just want to record these comments, here, for myself as much as anything.

The context of the following quotes is America’s latest useless, brainless, hysterical hissyfit, that over the Cordoba center. The Cordoba center will be more familiar to most people, unfortunately, by its condensed and intentionally-charged, as well as critically-misleading name, “the Ground Zero mosque.” As usual, thanks to our “liberal media” for sacrificing both accuracy and objectivity in favor of attention-getting and, not coincidentally, inflammatory phrasing.

I should offer a gold star to The Economist, however, for not only its reasoned and mature perspective on the matter, but for absolutely piling on. A praiseworthy effort.

Sadly, many of America’s so-called “leaders,” have unfortunately been lacking any similar commitment to those national ideals (not to mention the plain, old-fashioned concept of “standing up for what’s right”) which are apparently inconvenient just now.

(more…)

First, everything not fairly closely-related to environmental issues:

• “Krugs” throws old, familiar charges of alienating his primary base of support, in a futile quest for “postpartisanship,” at President Obama. Charges still stick.
• While subjecting Facebook and its pimple-faced kid billionaire to growing scrutiny, let us not forget about that other Great Cyber-Satan.
• Optimistic (or worried?) that Americans have learned a new and lasting sense of thrift? Rejoice (or despair).
• Flipboard: I wonder if this is anything like how John Henry felt while watching technicians set up the version 1.0 steam drill.

This one is borderline: A Times op-ed calls the much-ballyhooed, and much taxpayer-subsidized, Chevy Volt an overpriced flop. (“W” encouraged talk of the “hydrogen highway,” and now electric cars are having their moment… bets on whether the next administration will raise flywheel technology to the rank of automotive savior?)

And the rest:

• The Economist arrives about a week late with coverage of the fizzling out of climate change legislation, apparently hoping to make up for the delay by publishing two largely interchangeable articles. The picture is, of course, bleak, but hey! Schadenfreude: “a patchwork of different rules in different states… may leave big energy firms regretting their opposition to cap and trade.” (Though we’ll probably just end up bailing them out, as we do with everything else that big businesses have cause to regret.)
• NPR’s science blog seems to spend a lot of time indulging in elliptical ruminations on the authors’ personal unresolved issues about science and non-secular philosophy. But this item was one of the rare breaks, and remarkably poignant; I thought about posting some sort of commentary, but there’s probably no just no real need.