Good lord, what a fantastic post. Thank you.

No comment, really, just love your posts and this is a particularly good one. Fear of the black man runs very, very deep in American culture, and you're right: Obama cannot ever 'score' with Ferraro's perpetual motion goalposts. He's (we're) just going to have to keep grinding away with what we've got until the Ferraros, well, until they die off.

On another tack, up to this nomination cycle the only thing I knew of Ferraro was that she ran for Vice President once. It's enlightening to see the mask come off as her political centeredness (along with the Clintons, the DLC, etc.) gets left in the dust by a country ready to engage a new paradigm. So in a sense one might do a little shifting of emphasis, and re-attribute her statements as a projection of her personal anxieties, rather than some mythical bloc of 'Reagan Democrats.' Stuck in the past, indeed.

I second the thank-you. This sorely needed to be said, and with just this sort of patient clarity.

Very nice post. I hope to someday live in a country where we can have Presidential candidates of any race or sex, and discuss more pressing issues than our collective yet separate sense of grievance.

Increasingly HRC is running like a Republican and adopting their spin points against Obama. The game here is the "elitist" accusation, which as Eric Alterman, among many others, points out has been routinely used against every Democrat since Adlai Stevenson, even as in the case of John Edwards, best known in the media for expensive haircuts, where it makes no sense whatsoever.

This now meaningless term is being applied to Obama by Republicans and HRC operatives like Ferraro; however, they don't seem able to explain how a guy who spent part of his life as community organizer in Chicago's South Side could remain oblivious to the problems of ordinary people.

WTF? Geraldine Ferraro was on a ticket that lost 49 of 50 states to Reagan.

And Mondale went to the University of Minnesota law school, so I guess the Big Ten is out as well.

Very good post, although I hate to say that in our society today, I sadly doubt a black person could reach the heights Obama has scaled without an Ivy League imprimatur (e.g., Patrick, Booker, etc.). However, that doesn't justify in any way Ferraro's absurd comments.

The more Ferraro elaborates her specious theories, the gladder I am that she didn't win in 1984. I think Mondale would've made a great president (certainly far better than Reagan), but jeez! What's wrong with Ferraro?

Excellent points. Thank you.

Not only were the people Ferraro hearing things in Obama's speech, "they believe he is telling them that their time has passed."

Is there a benign interpretation of that? They believed he was telling them that the time of non-college educated people had passed? They believed he was telling them that the time of working-class people had passed? Obama is threatening to take away the famous historical privileges and advantages of those groups?

Uh, ... right. Uh-hunh.

Maybe it's a distracting rat-hole to label that racist, but it's sure something.

Sigh. I always miss Kevin. He would never have posted anything this ridiculous (or this long, thankfully). Hilzoy's tome of a post is just more far-left screeching by same people sitting in nearly all-white states pretending they're anthropologist watching working class Dems in red and purple states from the outside like researchers observe experimental rats. Well I'm one of the rats. I'm a working class Dem from North Carolina, and I can tell you unequivocally that Ferraro's op-ed was dead right on. My family has been heavily involved with the Democratic party for its entire life. They all live in NC, and they all voted for Hillary for exactly the reasons Ferraro described - and no they're not a bunch of racists. You people go to your liberal dinner parties and your clubs and you sit around over flavored martinis and convince yourselves that you have some special insight into the minds of working class Dems in red & purple states; states you've never been to, but hey you met someone from there in grad school, so heck he/she must be representative. Sorry Charlie, they're not. As for Conrad's Ghost wishing we would just die off. Well that's a pretty typical attitude of Obama supporters. It's the thought process of spoiled child, which, if I can play anthropologist for a moment, seems to be Obama's base. To hilzoy and the rest of you, try actually GOING out and meeting one of these blue-collar Dems (I know, ewwwww). But if you could ever tear yourself away from your yoga class, I think you'll be shocked to find that they're not as stupid or as racist as you think. And I know most of you think it's unfair that your trust funds don't allow you more say in an election (we really should get that law changed), don't overdose on your anti-depressants just yet. Obama will probably prevail in the end. Which personally for me is fine, because ironically, he's the antithesis of his supporters: a grownup.

As a retiree, I'm not concerned with losing out to some minority who is more privileged than I. However, in my experience as a manager, I have seen examples where whites were treated less well than minorities. For example, my boss told me to hire a minority to fill a professional level opening. I hired a Chinese-American woman and was chewed out for doing so. When my boss said "hire a minority" he meant "hire a black person." (In fact, there were no black applicants for that job.)

Affirmative action produces many cases where whites -- especially white men --- lose out to more privileged minorities. The Reagan Democrats who fear that they will lose out to less-qualified minorities have a basis for that fear. (Of course, minorities lose out due to racism, but IMHO Reagan Democrats are less aware of the racism than of how they are harmed by affirmative action.)

Thanks for calling bullshit on this.

What you see in Geraldine Ferraro is a mentally closed system. She cannot look at a black politician without believing that he is an advocate for black people at the expense of whites, and thus everything he says, even "and" or "the", *must* be "playing the race card." Hence the "our time has come" falsehood. But evidence won't matter for her. Any gesture or scrap of utterance from Obama that sounds remotely black or relevant black people is going to be enough to fuel her paranoia.

The other part of the closed system is that these folks interpreting disagreement as oppression. They say something stupid and wrong, we say that's stupid and wrong, they say look at me I'm being oppressed as a white person. Ferraro has been happily playing this game for months.

Did I fail to say "I am talking about the Reagan Democrats as Ferraro imagines them" enough?

hilzoy, i know you said you didn't want an argument, but harvard and yale are both teh suck. columbia is where it's at.

go lions!

your pal,
blake

p.s. graffito seen at 116th st. subway station:

harvard man: at harvard, we always wash our hands after using the restroom.

columbia man: at columbia, we don't piss on our hands.

It is not affirmative action, which is all but dead especially in recessionary times.

Reagan Democrats are baby boomers who want Obama's voters to pay for all the entitlements boomers voted themselves.

If you ask urban blacks, "Do you want to pay for all the entitlements that white baby boomers voted for themselves?" Most urban Blacks would say no.

You find the same with new Mexican immigrants, they would never agree to cover the boomer entitlement costs if given the choice.

This is really more of a boomer vs Gen X than a racist problem.

Geraldine Ferraro is one of the pols who promised the boomers all these goodies. Hillary the same. These folks built their entire careers on promising all sort of great programs for boomers and few of Obama's constituents are on board with that program.

I say to Obama, though you are likely a fool, go after the Boomers, tooth and nail and you win the election.

Hilzoy, I don't usually comment here, but I just wanted to thank you for a very thoughtful, engaging post. I especially agree with the fruitlessness of the way racists parry the term "racist." Great analysis.

Question to Obama supporter: I to am a white male working class voter who supports Obama. I too have members in my family (all 50+) who will not vote for him. My question would be, what would you call them? Ignoramt? Racist? what?. I think there is a bit of the first two involved. Really just racism since that is ignorance. What do you attribute to the view?

Sigh. I always miss Kevin. He would never have posted anything this ridiculous (or this long, thankfully).

Yes! I agree! And I'm sure you had much more non-ridiculous things to say but your comment was too long with no breaks and I have the attention span of a three year old.

They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems.

They (of whom she speaks or imagines) don't believe he understands them because HRC and Ferraro have been campaigning in their communities for months specifically driving the meme that Obama does not understand them. They have been told ad nauseum that only Hillary "gets" them. This is very much like the Libby telling Judith Miller about WMD's and then have the White House quote Judith Miller.

Here in the Sierra Foothills and on a recent visit to Mainline Philly, sadly, I find Ferraro spot on in her sense of Reagan Dems.

I'm still trying to figure out why a number of people (usually encountered as blog posters or commenters) seem to want to be able to posit racist arguments but somehow are angry at the idea someone might think them racist?

Many of us saw the videos of West Virginians being interviewed about the primary. One woman in particular said that although she wasn't a racist, she doesn't think she can trust a person of another race to run the country. Nice lady or not, that is an openly, explicitly racist view.

It isn't snarling or mean or Klan-like, but, good grief, that should be enough to define your views as racist.

I mean, if you're going to proudly espouse views rooted in openly racist logics, why is it worse then to be considered a racist?

What worse thing does it add to "be" a racist if you're already pushing racist views?

"The "we" whose time for change has come is not blacks, in this speech. ... But for some reason, the Reagan Democrats in Ferraro's head didn't hear it that way."

I don't think Ferraro actually believed that Obama's "we" meant "blacks". It's too ridiculous. But she was pretending to think that "some" people might have thought that - probably just a writer's convention, or invention, just to make a point. A dumbass point, but whatever...

I also think the term "racism" is almost meaningless. Everyone is racist, by the most common definitions. Arguing about what is and isn't racist is a waste of time.

Importantly, what the hell is Ferraro doing? She ran this by Hillary, right? ... WTF? She's a complete idiot, and if Hillary's people thought this would help them, jeez...

Call many (but by no means all)of the Reagan Dems by their original name and perhaps some things become clearer. Wallace Dems.

Notice the Ms. Ferraro never mentioned the strong majority of women in Hillary's campaign. Are these women sexist?

thripshaw for president!

hilzoy: Did I fail to say "I am talking about the Reagan Democrats as Ferraro imagines them" enough?

For some people, you can say it as many times as you like and it won't sink in. Criticize even a hypothetical moron and you're an elitist. Imply that racism might tinge their thinking even slightly and you're playing the race card. You can't win.

Would G. Ferraro have been nominated for VP if they hadn't decided they wanted a woman on the ticket?

signed,
thersites, the gas-pumping, dishwashing, college dropout elitist whose father was shitcanned by a major corporation for siding with the union

Obama supporter, ignoring the unbelievable litany of stereotypes in your own post, I think you've missed hilzoy's point completely. The question is, why is it that the people that Ferraro's talking about -- and remember, hilzoy is clearly skeptical that these people exist -- why don't they trust Obama? Ferraro points out that they don't care about his positions or his upbringing; his educational background is really no different than Clinton's; and he's certainly never said anything that suggests that whites' (or anyone else's) "time has passed." So the question is, what is it about Obama that the people Ferraro describes don't like?

I take it you consider yourself one of those people. So that's the question to you: why don't you trust him? And remember again, no one is accusing you of being "racist." It just looks, from reading Ferraro's column, like race must be involved in an unacceptable way. It is important that we understand what's really going on, for the sake of the Party. You clearly feel strongly about this. Please, explain why you don't trust Obama. (And really -- I'm not trying to argue with you here. I really am trying to understand, because hilzoy's post made a lot of sense to me.)

Working class Whites' prejudice is not against elitists, their prejudice is against losing privileges their race has historically entitled them to. The media reinforce this misconceived prejudice with welfare abuse by minorities, costs to local governments for providing humanitarian services to immigrants and other such stories that target the fears of a class that has seen their portion of the economic pie diminish. The media has done a good job framing their economic decline as a result of increased civil rights and social welfare programs rather than the changes to the political economy that favors collectivized capital over labor.

Ferraro plays to these Whites' prejudices just like GE does, for political and economic gain. She offers nothing but condescension. If Ferraro's preferred candidate were to be the candidate for president, her elitist condescension would be used to persuade these same White voters to support the Republican candidate, who would make a much stronger appeal to the native racism and fears of loss of privilege that cloud this dominant population's attitude.

hilzoy quotes Ferraro:

"Reagan Democrats [are] not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems [...] What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind."

Obama addressed this matter over two months ago in his "More Perfect Union" speech:

"... a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years [...] But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."

These two passages make it pretty clear to me that (1) Obama is genuinely concerned about the problems and concerns of working class white folks -- a.k.a. "Reagan Democrats" -- and compassionately recognizes the legitimacy of their anger, which has been cynically manipulated into resentment against black folks, by politicians seeking to divide and conquer working class voters and (2) Ferraro, on behalf of Hillary Clinton, is one of those politicians who "plays the race card" in order to divide white working class folks from black working class folks in order to gain power.

Obama is promoting unity. Ferraro is promoting division.

Why must Obama supporters seemingly always infer the worst possible motives on the part of Clinton supporters like Ferraro? Don't y'all want to win this thing in November?

Ferraro's basic point is that, lacking the racial pride impetus, working class white voters don't have the same "incentive" to support Obama as their African-American neighbors. Why? Because they're too worried about losing their homes, jobs and healthcare. They therefore want to go with the "tried and true" Clinton brand (which they associate with prosperity, and -- especially when it comes to Hillary's version of the brand -- traditional Democratic party redistributionism).

I think what Ferraro (and Krugman and lots of other prominent Clinton supporters) wants when it comes to assurances of not being "left behind" is simply more focus on table top issues. Obama may have some thoughtful plans in this regard, and he has thankfully avoided pandering to voters on the gasoline issue, but his campaign has mostly focused on foreign policy and political reform (the ever amorphous "Change"). Hillary Clinton Democrats want economic deliverables. These more downscale voters, who don't have the time to devote to visiting blogs and campaign policy websites (heck, a lot of them don't have internet access), are understandably unsure as to exactly what they're likely to get out of an Obama administration.

I strongly suspect that, in this season of economic discontent and $4 gasoline, plenty of working class white voters would pull the lever for an African-American candidate over his/her white opponent if the roles were reversed, and it were the white candidate who was seen as the Bill Bradley-style latte liberal and the black politician the traditional lunch pail New Dealer.

I believe Obama's big challenge this fall will be to assuage the economic anxieties of working class whites, lest they fall (yet again!) to the siren call of GOP cultural fear-mongering.

Great post Hilzoy!!
I try to imagine Ferraro reading it, but my guess is that she has one closed mind.

The comments are revealing. Several rants on affirmative action, which is off point because there is no daylight between HRC & BHO positions of affirmative action. If you are an affirmative action single issue there is a big fat Republican Party waiting for your vote.

A long 12:29 fact-free rant on how us elitists (are we?) don't know what the hell we are talking about. The writer does not engage the arguments Hilzoy puts forward, but instead howls incoherently in the fact-free zone.

Here are some racial/sexual observations from a life lived in pro-Obama 90% white Washington state.

I remember as a child (60's) seeing some black people driving a Cadillac. That seemd wrong to me, and at the same I knew my reaction was wrong. I was about 9 at the time.

At my DC college (mid 80's) the lunchroom was 100% segregated. Blacks and whites sat at separate tables with no mixing ever. Occasionally I imagined trying to break the barrier, but I had neither the nerve nor the social skills.

While working for a big corporation an older purchasing agent was horrified that she might be asked to travel with a black mechanical engineer. She told me this with absolute confidence I would sympathize with her plight.

At the same corporation a female engineering manager was rising quickly. In my observation she was obviously exceptionally talented. The older white male managers to a man were 'knew' that only preferences could account for her rise.

At my present workplace a black mechanic was fired several years ago for several reasons, but mostly because he was sloppy and caused a lot of rework. He wrongly attributes his firing to racism and is threatening to sue.

A very close friend of mine (Chinese immigrant) was sued on racial discrimination grounds when (as building manager) she raised the rest on a Hispanic family. The rise was handled badly (rent stagnated for years and was adjusted to par in a single big jump) but race was not an issue. This experience has dramatically hardened her attitudes toward racial preferences, and she stopped bonding with America.

These stories are what we all have to deal with. My anger is reserved for those who see the racism / sexism divide in a rigid and one-sided way. Geraldine Ferraro sure seems like one of the latter.

That was a little long for someone also listening to cspan :)

"Who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist?"

This strikes me as a little shrill with respect to anything I've seen this campaign season among official campaign staff or candidate supporters. I've seen people say things that are not politic, by accident, by inexperience, and by personal bias. But more than anything I see people willing to believe the worst about other members of their own party and inflate these charges into some of the ugliest career ending media events of the primary season.

"Reagan Democrats" don't identify with a poor black kid who went to Columbia, Harvard and Harvard Law School but they do identify with a middle class white woman who went to Wellesly and Yale Law School and married a Yale Law School classmate who went to Georgetown?
Right!

Is not Mr. Obama the child of a black man and a white woman? Is it not just as likely that he would have empathy and understanding of the "white" perspective as he would the black?
I, as most are I hope, am unconcerned about his racial heritage. His ideas and character are enough for me. I trust him to make decisions on what is best for all Americans white, black,latino, whatever.

The problem with "affirmative action" and other such "civil rights" nostrums is that they have become means of papering over underlying social and economic problems without really solving them.

What is needed is better healthcare, better housing, better education, better environment, and so forth - these benefits to be distributed fairly to all - share and share alike.

The underlying philosophy should be that of Harry Hopkins of the New Deal: try something; if it works, fine; otherwise drop it and try something else.

This process involves challenging basic assumptions; including those associated with both "liberal" and "conservative" persuasion.

Excellent, excellent post. Thank you...

Yada yada yada. Ferraro is writing about classism. Writing poorly, mind you. But it is about classism. You know, "bitter." Obama nailed the bitterness. That is what Ferraro is writing about. Poorly.

"I believe Obama's big challenge this fall will be to assuage the economic anxieties of working class whites, lest they fall (yet again!) to the siren call of GOP cultural fear-mongering."

GOP ? Yeah, right. Try HRC.

Let me spell it out for you Clinton supporters:

The only way that Obama will kiss your asses enough is if he changes his gender and skin color and starts calling himself Hillary.

I'm sorry, but this shit has got to stop. I can't even tell HRC supporters from Republicans any more. It's really that bad.

If you don't think that Obama has the interest of working class people, white, black, yellow, tan, or green, in his heart, then you suffer from intentional ignorance. This is the same kind of ignorance displayed by a lot of Bush voters in the 2004 election. Just bury your head in the sand and pretend that this is all just another sporting event, and then suck on it when you lose your job and can't get health insurance. You'll have deserved every thing you get for treating this election like it's some kind of stupid game.

I've seen numerous posts from Clinton supporters on various blogs, this one included and MyDD especially, where they do nothing but threaten to take down Obama in the fall because of some perceived injustice suffered at the hands of Obama. What kind of flaming narcissistic asshole posts comments like that while still claiming to be a Democrat ?

Ferraro's piece is, at best, jumbled -- and it includes a convenient bit of revisionism:

... I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign...

I must've missed that statement, because I don't remember any controversy over remarks about the influence of black supporters on his campaign. In fact, I don't remember her making *any* remarks along those lines. What I do remember, though is her saying that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

I also remember her saying, "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

But I'll go with her on one of the points she makes about Reagan Democrats -- or one of the segments of Reagan Democrats that have been at the heart of considerable discussion during the campaign: "What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind." I don't doubt that there's something to this, but I'd note two things. First, this is a legitimate concern held by pretty much every single voting demographic (Latinos, pro-choice voters, senior citizens,..., etc.), so there's nothing particularly unique about wanting this assurance. But Ferraro neglects to point out a central fact: the various folks who reside in this group -- white, blue-collar Appalachian folks who've worked in mines, steel mills, & manufacturing -- have *already* been left behind. Those jobs left a long time ago, during previous administrations (and even those who might think that the net effects of NAFTA -- under Clinton -- were positive, there's absolutely no question that the results have hit these Reagan Democrats especially hard), and nothing's come along to replace them. Certainly not anything that approaches the wages & benefits they were seeing before.

So they have a right to be skeptical about any candidate. But she seems to want them to focus that skepticism exclusively on Obama, because he's got an agenda that's specifically going to privilege blacks over whites. Or maybe her point is that he needs to prove that he doesn't have such an agenda -- an interesting position in which to put a candidate. Either way,this is nothing short of paranoia.

Finally, and for what it's worth, I don't get the sense the Ferraro is representative of Clinton's supporters -- and not even Clinton supporters with whom she shares the same demographic. When you support a candidate in a contest that's gone on as long as this one, and a candidate who comes as close as Clinton has (and let's not kid ourselves -- this has been especially close), you have every right to be disappointed -- and even angry. I'm just not prepared to believe that this is as much (or even at all) about race for many of those supporters as it seems to be for Ferraro. And I'm not convinced that they won't vote Democratic in the general, even if they lack the enthusiasm they had for their preferred candidate.

I recently had a conversation with an 'angry white blue collar' neighbor that tells it like it is.

He said: "I'm not a racist, but I'm not going to have a nigger in the white house."

It's pretty sad, but I'm afraid that for most of the 'angry blue collar' vote that's the bottom line.

Hilzoy, this is a superb post. It was clear to me and to careful readers that you were talking about Ferraro's fantasy of "Reagan Democrats" rather than any actually existing humans. You were asking why Ferraro would hypothesize the existence of a group of people with the characteristics she describes, and noting that those characteristics amount to a description of a group of people who cannot even hear what Obama says, let alone vote for him, because he is black. And what you are saying is that for people like Ferraro, who imagine such a group of people to exist, their reaction ought to involve persuading such hypothetical people to listen to Obama and support him despite the fact that he is black, rather than conjuring up and magnifying imaginary slights these imaginary people imagine Obama to have committed.

I think the way "Obama supporter" carelessly misunderstands your post as a condescending analysis of actually existing white working-class Democrats is in some ways akin to the kind of projection Ferraro is engaging in. There's a kind of slippage involved, where people's pre-existing bugaboos just hurdle over whatever is actually being discussed and come right to the fore. Geraldine Ferraro no doubt hears "our time has come" and thinks to herself "my time has passed," but that has a lot to do with the fact that she's pretty old and is clearly worried that her time has passed. But in this, as with the race issue, Ferraro (or rather the invisible Reagan Democrats she claims to ventriloquize -- not sure why we should honor this psychological fiction of hers) imagines Obama to have made an accusation against her simply by virtue of being the person he is: twenty years younger, black, smart and Ivy League. I don't doubt that the jealousy and resentment she's sensing is genuine. But I believe its source is internal to her head, rather than external, and that in either case, the question for a mature person should be whether that jealousy and resentment is legitimate or acceptable.

GOP ? Yeah, right. Try HRC.

Don't be absurd. A) Clinton is not going to be the nominee. B) She's savvy enough to know she must appear to be a good soldier if she's to preserve her political future.

It will be the Republicans who will try to tap into working class anxiety by campaigning on God, Guns and Gays, not HRC.

If insufficient emphasis on the economic issue leaves low information Clinton Democrats unsure as to why they should vote for Obama, he'll deserve to lose. Millions of non-rich Americans are tired of lacking the basic social protections that are taken for granted in other rich democracies. I think Obama is capable of pivoting to emphasize pocket book issues more strongly in the general, but I must admit I'm afraid he's not comfortable doing so because of fears of being portrayed as an Angry Black Radical. So far, our preliminary tastes of his general election strategy have given us lots of discussion about Cuba and Iraq, and not so much about wage replacement insurance or healthcare.

Even supporters have to admit that if Obama were white he wouldn't be in this position. He is the least experienced and accomplished major presidential candidate in modern American history. As front page articles in the Washington Post this week have detailed, he hasn't even been required to articulate policy specifics. If he were some older, uncharasmastic white guy, he'd be laughed out of the room. I'll vote for him, but it's true. It's a cult of personality based on his considerable oratory skills, compelling personal story and unique image.

Speaking to Pat's issus:

I looked at Obama's issue, and he has about 30 or 40 issues, all of which he wants to solve by getting the federal legislature into managing these issues.

For those of you over ten years of age, you should know he is likely to get one thing and spend the rest of the term muddling through.

The Obama enthusiasts are simply so naive. You will find Reagan Dems splitting the ticket. Obamaists really underestimate the depth at which older, wiser baby boomers scoff at your enthusiasm. For most of us, it is here we go again.

Is someone above actually disputing with a straight face that Reagan Democrats exist?

Even supporters have to admit that if Obama were white he wouldn't be in this position.

This is simply a meaningless statement. If John McCain were the son of an Indiana lawyer instead of the son of the commander-in-chief of the Pacific fleet, he wouldn't be in this position. If Hillary Clinton were married to George Clinton instead of Bill Clinton, she wouldn't be in this position. If Mitt Romney were the son of Phil Rizzuto instead of Gov. George Romney, he wouldn't be in this position. If John Edwards were black, he wouldn't be in this position. If Mike Huckabee were Jewish, he wouldn't be in this position. If Arnold Schwarzenegger were 5'3" tall, he wouldn't be in this position.

Obama has already spoken about "Reagan Democrats" without calling them that. When he does it he is called understanding and inclusive. When she does it she is called racist. Bottom line is they are both talking about class issues -- which have been ignored by everyone but Edwards who, IMHO, should have been the nominee.

Now we have Obama who I agree comes to us with no experience. (Don't carry on about his community organizing days, please. I did that. It is a career jump start.)

Notice how anyone who is critical of Obama here has to preface their criticism by first telling us they are voting for him? If not, the furies descend.

"Reagan Democrats"? I believe they're what most of us call Republicans.

Pat: I took it that someone was disputing whether Reagan Democrats, *as Ferraro described them*, actually exist.

For myself, I tend to assume that given any description of some kind of person, however odd, some person somewhere actually meets that description, unless it's impossible (e.g., a human being who is also a prime number.) So I'm sure someone, somewhere is just the sort of person Ferraro describes.

That said, I chose imaginary people (described by an actual Geraldine Ferraro) precisely so that I could talk about what might lead them to think this way without making actual people get defensive about their actual views.

Or so I thought.

These two passages make it pretty clear to me that (1) Obama is genuinely concerned about the problems and concerns of working class white folks -- a.k.a. "Reagan Democrats" -- and compassionately recognizes the legitimacy of their anger, which has been cynically manipulated into resentment against black folks, by politicians seeking to divide and conquer working class voters

Thanks for this whole comment, Secular Animist. I think it's the most valuable comment on the whole thread.

That speech shows me that Obama gets it, at least electorally. I think the challenge for him is to convey what he said here viscerally. To the voters that he needs. I think he can win over a lot of those voters, but they are slow to trust, especially someone who is seen as an outsider, which he is.

By the way, I grew up in a rural area. I don't think working in an urban low-income area means that you automatically understand the needs of a rural low-income voter. I think that's a very different landscape.

If Hillary Clinton were married to George Clinton instead of Bill Clinton, she wouldn't be in this position.

Man, consider the possibilities. The Oval Office would be the Mothership. Chelsea would be Star Child. And the Cabinet -- Bernie Worrell could be Chief of Staff; Maceo Parker would be Secretary of State; Attorney General, Stevie Wonder (justice is blind); Secretary of the Treasury, Sly Stone. Naturally, we'd have to rename the Department of Labor the Department of James Brown, in honor of the hardest working man -- anywhere. Ever. And Bootsy Collins would be Secretary of Defense.

At long last, one nation under a groove.

Many so-called Reagan Democrats vote for local Democrats and for Republicans nationally. They confuse the pollsters. They are not party loyalists. They view Democrats running nationally as a pack of elitists. That class thing. They are conservatives who resist rapid change. Democrats are a party of change. Obama, a black man, is a real big change. So, is Hillary, a woman. But she knows how to talk to them. They are still waiting to hear from him. Quit pushing that it is about race.

The type of people Ferraro is describing DO exist, and they exist all over the place, not just in Macomb County, where the term "Reagan Democrat" came from. And unless we get a handle on it, McCain will peel off a lot of those people. The hilarious thing is I don't even think Barry Obama would dispute it. Why are you?

All this racism imputed to the lower orders serves a precisely-articulated purpose: when the GOP steals the election, we need an explanation of how the hell Obama could lose to a cancerous ranting dotard. We'll think, "Well, you know how the canaille hates people of color," and it won't occur to us to question the effect of syndicated ballot-stuffing.

Couple things.

Pat 2:57 -- you said that "if Obama were white, he wouldn't be in this position," but then illustrated your point saying, "If he were some older, uncharasmastic white guy, he'd be laughed out of the room." What if he were the age he is, and had the same level of charisma he has, and were white? You really think he wouldn't be in this position?

brooksfoe 2:54 -- you're so right. Obama supporter's comments, and Ferraro's column, illustrate how we get blinded by our personal bugaboos. And even more, how one of the biggest influences on our feelings toward others is our instinctive sense of how they feel about us. Ferraro describes people who instinctively think Obama doesn't like them. Obama supporter is hard-wired to think northeastern bloggers (I guess?) don't like him/her. And in return, Obama supporter and Ferraro write their bogeyman off without actually paying attention to what they're saying, and indeed lash out pretty angrily. It's a common problem, and it gets in the way of getting things done like we should/could.

hilzoy, your post was brilliant. There are people out there who are being deliberately obtuse. They aren't understanding because to understand would be to concede the point. And that would be admitting that they lost.

matt said:
"Obamaists really underestimate the depth at which older, wiser baby boomers scoff at your enthusiasm. For most of us, it is here we go again."

and to all of you condescending baby boomers snickering at us naive young people who are unwise enough to support a candidate that took the bold step of actually SEEKING OUR SUPPORT, i would say this:

the boomer generation has dictated the political landscape of this nation for almost three decades now. for all of your wisdom, for all of your ability to say "here we go again", you don't seem to be very good at electing presidents.

further, i hear a lot of this from clinton supporters. you openly mock people PRECISELY BECAUSE they care about an election. perhaps it is this kind of wisdom and oldness that has resulted in nearly half of the nation not even bothering to vote in national elections.

when people say things like matt said, many of us young folks hear this: "when you don't vote, you're lazy. when you do vote, your ignorant." (sometimes what we really hear is: "GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS!") it seems like you just don't respect the intellect of anyone under the age of 30 (or 40? 50??).

given that you boomers are so comfortable scoffing at my entire generation, is it really surprising that we won't get behind the chosen candidate of middle-aged white people?

What if he were the age he is, and had the same level of charisma he has, and were white? You really think he wouldn't be in this position? Posted by: johnson on May 31, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Ask John Edwards.

Obama is a baby boomer, einstein.

Johnson, Obama would not be in this position if he were a "race man." Obama did not get where he is by pissing off white people in positions of power. He didn't make people uncomfortable. He made all the right connections, he said all the right things. Remember Biden's comment -- something like he dresses well and can put a sentence together. Obama worked the system. That's fine. Most politicians do that to get ahead. This is different. This is a black man with no meaningful experience who is way ahead, who will become President of the United States while overseeing the world's leading superpower.

My worry is that he worked the system so well -- and I don't mean that negatively -- that Democrats are launching a young, untested man into a position of enormous power and authority and he will falter and it will be blamed on racism. I have deep reservations that Obama represents more than he can possibly deliver. God, I hope I am wrong.

pat,
when obama was born is completely irrelevant to my argument, which is about old people belittling young people who actually want to vote.

but thank you for calling me einstein. it was super funny!

Your post was funnier.

MOPE, I sure wish all the "young people" you are talking about would have listened closely to John Edwards. There would have been major change under John Edwards. He had the bona fides to take on the system and win big.

But I guess the "young people" wanted an over cautious moderate.

Hilzoy – This is really an exceptional post - thought-provoking and well-written on a subject that causes so many to easily lose their cool. This is the type (and tone) of discussion that needs to be had regarding racism today. Geraldine Ferraro's op-ed is the opposite. (Though, giving credit where credit is due, she has in fact spawned this counter-conversation -- and that's a good thing.) So...thanks.

In 1984, I voted for the first time - for Ronald Reagan. I was 19. And looking back, I'm guessing I voted for him because he was more charismatic than Mondale and it probably didn’t go much deeper than that. He simply seemed like he would be more effective in office – and he gave off greater confidence that “the future is bright.” I am a white male…and though my family didn’t really have much money I always considered us middle class. I was a Reagan Democrat. Am I proud of it? Not really. But that was then and this is now.

Maybe 24 years from now, political pundits will be strategizing on how best to attract “Obama Republicans.” I’m doubtful the issues of race and racism will be a part of that discussion. Geraldine Ferraro will most likely be dead. Progress is inevitable.

Obama, a black man, is a real big change. So, is Hillary, a woman. But she knows how to talk to them. They are still waiting to hear from him. Quit pushing that it is about race.
Posted by: Kate Stone on May 31, 2008 at 3:37 PM

do you see any disconnect here? is it possible that your post-hoc justifications are simply blinders to a question which is fundamentally about race? is it possible that your statement is simply a more polite version of

I recently had a conversation with an 'angry white blue collar' neighbor that tells it like it is. He said: "I'm not a racist, but I'm not going to have a nigger in the white house." It's pretty sad, but I'm afraid that for most of the 'angry blue collar' vote that's the bottom line.
Posted by: Buford

?

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

Geri, I've always been absolutely mad for you, ever since I discovered that you and I not only share the same birthday, but a nice even 20 years apart. But stuff like this is boilerplate from 1984 and was pointless even then.

We've been hearing about the "resentments" of the "Reagan Democrats" for over 150 years; at least since the time of the New York draft riots of 1863. I'm sick to death of it. If these fools can't understand that they're the pawns of the white-CEO uberclass -- who are the ones reneging on pension plans and shipping jobs overseas -- and that black people are their fellow victims, not their enemies, then to hell with them. Write 'em off. They'll always be the dupes of their bosses.

I resist any attempt by anyone to call me racist. As I have said repeatedly here, I think the constant accusations of racism, no matter which camp they are coming from, are mostly wrongheaded. The issue of class has not been taken on by anyone by Edwards. Clinton did not take it on so much as having the ability to wade into poor, white, rural America and talk to folks as if they were not subhuman. Obama talked about those folks and misstepped with the "bitter" remark although he was totally right in what he said. He needs to wade into them and talk to them and look them in the eye and make a connection.

Or, is that racist of me to suggest?

Obama has already spoken about "Reagan Democrats" without calling them that. When he does it he is called understanding and inclusive. When she does it she is called racist.
Posted by: Kate Stone

he did actually -- the blurb above by Obama refers to the "Reagan Coalition." And when a black man tells working class white America that they have valid resentments but that shifting the blame to minorities rather than their corporate masters, it IS understanding and inclusive.

When older, upper class white women like Ferraro say, "what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is," which places the blame squarely BACK on blacks rather than addressing the class issue, can you see why I would think it racist?

He needs to wade into them and talk to them and look them in the eye and make a connection. Or, is that racist of me to suggest?
Posted by: Kate Stone

He has, repeatedly. And he needed to and continues to need to do so. It is of course not racist to suggest that he needed to do so. An unwillingness to see that he actually has reached out, and a refusal to make the connection when it comes from a half-black man, however, is racist.

kate stone said:
"MOPE, I sure wish all the "young people" you are talking about would have listened closely to John Edwards. There would have been major change under John Edwards. He had the bona fides to take on the system and win big."

that would be the same guy who voted to authorize the war, and only realized this was a mistake after he lost the vice presidency in 2004, right?

i've never said that obama was perfect. in fact, i don't support his candidacy. i am just sick and tired of hearing old people tell me how stupid and naive my generation is, especially when you've spent the last twenty years with all your eggs in the DLC basket.

if there's an old person who feels like responding, might i suggest mocking my intellect and/or enthusiasm without addressing what i've said.

Kate,

See, this is what I don't get. I've seen Obama "wade into them" and "look them in the eye" throughout this campaign. While campaigning in Oregon (my home state), Obama visited Roseburg High School in Douglas County, a traditionally Republican, timber-heavy area. According to the paper, he was the first major party candidate to visit Roseburg in 40 years. He talked about the things that matter to the people of Douglas County -- about health care, about jobs, about the war. And according to most of the media outlets, he made a very strong connection with the 1,400 or so people in attendance.

So what exactly did he do wrong here? How is he talking to folks in rural, white Oregon as though they're subhuman? And can you detail exactly how he's ignoring or belittling rural white voters in all the other small-town campaign stops in other states? I see a whole bunch of accusations on the part of Clinton supporters, but very little actual evidence.

Gonads, I agree that Obama's speech was understanding and inclusive. As I said and you missed, he was right! I don't agree that when Ferraro says much the same thing, very poorly, she is racist. She is a very poor writer and I wonder why someone did not edit her heavily. The "reverse racism" bit makes no sense to me. I believe she is a woman who has devoted her life to public service and is royally pissed off at having it all come down to "she's a racist."

You read me and call me racist. It trips off the keys. Racist. Easy.

If I have missed that Obama -- a "half-black man" as you describe him -- has "repeatedly" waded into rural/white/poor America and made a connection then I missed it, really and truly missed it and I will take your word for it that he has done so. I tend to read stories that say he has not connected with this "demographic." Is that because they are racist?

First, don't make an assumption that if I am critical of Barack Obama I must be a supporter of Hillary Clinton. That is not the case.

Second, I wrote on my blog that Obama went to Pendleton. I did not know about Roseburg because I do not read the Oregonian everyday to find that out. Nor do I read every paper in every town to know that he is, in fact, wading into rural/white/poor America. Good for him.

So what does the NYTs, WaPO,LATimes, Miami Herald, etc. continue to write stories that he is not connecting with white/rural/poor Americans.

Racism?

Kate, how do you think Obama won Iowa? Go back and look for any of the coverage over the course of 2007.

Oops. That was posted by me in response to funkdunk rather than posted by funkydunk.

MOPE, I don't know what your "old people" cut off is so I don't know if I am responding to you as an old person.

Edwards did give support to Bush to use force in Iraq. Yup. Big mistake. I don't honestly know how Barack Obama would have voted if he had been a Senator at that time. He strikes me as a very cautious man who doesn't much buck the system. So, who knows?

Colin, he did win Iowa by about 35% I think. Iowa, by the way, has a highly educated population. Huckabee won there, too. I don't know offhand what the rural/poor breakdown was for Obama and don't have time to go looking right now. the thing that stands out for me about Iowa is that Edwards had spent an amazing amount of time there and lost.

I would respond to MOPE if I understood what he believed in.

If it is change he wants, then it won't come from his vote. Change will most likely come from economic dislocation, if the federal government has a role in change, God knows what it is.

I tend to read stories that say he has not connected with this "demographic." Is that because they are racist?
Posted by: Kate Stone

My interpretation of this may be somewhat different, since I see his speeches as an attempt to legitimize the concerns of working class whites, and then to divert their resentment to the appropriate source for their grievances, and make a case for why their identification with Reagan and Republicans will only worsen their very real problems.

Therefore, having made a case which appeals to me, it is easier for me to blame the failure to "connect" with this demographic on the audience rather than on Obama. The audience is choosing between an Ivy League white female lawyer from Arkansas and an Ivy League black lawyer (raised by his single white Mom!) with differences in policy positions which are minor, and likely not even identified by the audience. ... So I bring up racism as a potential etiology.

I honestly did not intend to call you a racist for anything you've posted, even indirectly.

For what its worth, I wanted Edwards, too, despite the Iraq war vote, for which he seemed genuinely contrite. I found him to be the most populist of the options both in 2004 and now, but he ran out of money and lost the primaries. Twice. That was also noted.

thank you, gonads, for clearing up the racism issue for me. As a white woman in a mixed race marriage and a kid who is both I find Barack Obama's background quite appealing and refreshing.

I don't believe the audience is first and foremost choosing between a white woman lawyer with an Ivy League background and black male lawyer with an Ivy League background, as you describe them. I think poor white people do not concentrate on educational background if the politician standing in front of them can connect with them on a personal level. Hillary seems to do that quite easily. Obama seems a little stiffer "wading in." His speeches about class issues are wonderful but it is a like a sociologist wrote them. I saw her recently do a long face to face in PR with a working poor family there. Watch her body language, watch how she leans into people, how she looks them in the eyes. Good stuff. Obama is a little less comfortable. They get that.

Why dont we hold an election to see who is right, Hilzoy or Ferraro. Oh thats right, we did, in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,... in states where theres alot of white Reagan Democrats. And what happened? Obama got trounced by these very voters. Its all over the news. Pundits and pollsters have been talking about it constantly: Obamas problem with the white working class. Are you living in a cave?

Ferraro is dealing with this REALITY, while youre... I dont know what youre doing except being biased, unable to be objective, or deal with anything negative about your favored candidate.

"You'd think that this might have done the trick:

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch..."

So a speech given at 9:30 in the morning, when most hard-working blue collar white Americans were at work, should have allayed these problems? A speech that obsfucated rather than addressed his Trinity Church problems? Look, I've invested more hope and aspiration in Obama than any other candidate of my lifetime, but if the election were held today, he would lose because of his own mistakes.
The Obama that was running in February would have won a 40-45 state mandate against a worthy representative of the opposing party, and would have been able to use that mandate to do great