Why Isn't Obama Ahead by a Landslide as the Economy Collapses? The Psychodynamics of the 2008 Election Come Into Fierce Relief

Once again I've started hearing Blue Staters responding with horror and shock that Obama has not shot McCain out of the water. "How can it be," they ask, "that after 7 years of war, the dramatic and scary economic collapse, growing ecological crisis, and undermining of human rights and civil liberties that Americans are not overwhelmingly rejecting McCain who supported most of the destructive policies of the past and shows no signs of changing them should he be elected? Americans," they go on to say, "must either be stupid, extremely militaristic or racist."

If Obama understood how to answer these blue-staters and their all-too-ready-contempt for the Americans who don't agree with them, he'd have a far greater chance of winning this election. I hope the readers of this note with try to reach him with an analysis I present below of what is going wrong. Unfortunately, many of Obama's own supporters have bought into the "It's the economy, stupid"reductionist view of human needs that gives them no alternative way of understanding. Because if all that people care about is their own material well-being, then they must be irrational to even consider supporting McCain. But that's not the whole story of who we are as Americans.

I remember having these kinds of elitist thoughts myself when Reagan was first elected, but in the twenty-eight years since then I've engaged in a systematic study of the psychodynamics of American politics, and come to realize how very misguided that put-downish analysis of middle income Americans.

What I and my colleagues working on what was originally anNIMH-funded research project on stresses at work and stress in family life -- we ran groups and did interviews with over ten thousand Americans -- discovered is that for a large sector of Americans, the issues are not the issue in a presidential campaign. So they can easily agree with the liberal or progressive candidates on the issues, and hence in any polling appear to be closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, yet in the polling booth it is not those issues that determine their vote.

Instead, what shapes the consciousness of Americans are two psychodynamic issues: the level of their fear vs. the level of their hope, and the degree to which they feel recognized and respected by those who are seeking their vote. One of the terrible problems with the people who have pushed Obama to present himself as more "centrist" is that they don't understand how their role in pushing the candidate away from his own deepest truths has undermined his campaign and made him appear less authentic and hence less trust-worthy. So lets explore these issues.

The level of fear is never static. Though most of us have been subjected to an intense barrage of messages that tell us that we are surrounded by people who only care about themselves, and a world filled with terrorists who seek to destroy us, and that the only path to safety for ourselves or our country is to dominate and control others before they dominate and control us, we've also been exposed to a different set of experiences in which we've learned to recognize that many people who seem hurtful or scary can sometimes be moved by our acting in a sensitive and caring way toward them, and that love and generosity generate more security than attack and attempts to manipulate others.

Truth is that both of those voices are always in most of our heads, and that while our individual psychological history may determine that one or the other holds greater weight, at any given period a set of circumstances (e.g. 9/11 for fear or the collapse of the Soviet Union for hope) may shift social energy more in one direction than another. For that reason, static analyzes that focus on whether a given person grew up with a more patriarchal/domination oriented family or a more nurturing and cooperation oriented family are inadequate, because they fail to notice the way people can transcend their previous conditioning and move in a new direction if the fear or the hope, the domination or the love/generosity aspects of their consciousness are most effectively touched. Reinforcing the voices of hope inside us is the most important task of progressive politics, and that doesn't happen simply by saying "lets be hopeful."

Watch the Republicans and they know how to touch the voice of fear, and reinforce patriarchal/domination views while ridiculing anyone who might be "soft" or "naïve" (e.g. in believing that negotiations would be helpful with Iran or Russia or Venezuela). That same wisdom is not there with the Democrats--they seem unable to affirm that voice of hope, love and generosity in people that must be massively reinforced, particularly in the face of it being put-down and systematically ridiculed. Obama mentioned the right issues (care about others, peace, social justice, ecological sanity) but his talk, and most importantly his campaign and his ads stay away from that, imagining that they can mobilize people around some modified version of the "it's the economy, stupid" consciousness, as though Americans only care about or get scared about the economy.

Of course, they do care about the economy, and there probably will be a bump toward Obama in next week's polling. But they also care about the lack of loving connections in their lives, the level of futility and meaningless in their work, the well-being of their children, and the possibility of peace in the world.

Obama needs to help people see that these very important elements in their lives have been undermined by a society that fosters selfishness, materialism, and a "looking out for number one"consciousness that is endemic to the competitive capitalist marketplace, cheered on by the media, and brought home into personal lives in ways that undermine our capacities to sustain long-term loving relationships undermine our ability to make sacrifices for our communities, and encourages disrespectful or even self-destructive behavior in some of our children. But until Obama and other Dems present a tough and hard-nosed defense of values like generosity, caring for others, and an insistence that our well-being cannot be achieved apart from the well-being of everyone else on the planet, they will continue to be perceived as out of touch with the real worries of many Americans, and weak and afraid of their own values and unable to embody the hope that they need to stimulate in others.

Obama and many other liberals/progressives appear to not really believe in the possibility of a world of love and generosity, and that reinforces the voice of fear in many people who could be won to a politics of hope if anyone appeared to be hard and powerfully into taking those values and showing how they applied concretely in domestic and foreign policy.

An Obama campaign weakens hope (no matter how many times it uses that word) if it can't say clearly the following:

1. The economic crisis is not going to be solved solely by new economic policy wonks -- because the basic cause of our economic meltdown is the selfishness and materialism that has been fostered by a politics that says our highest obligation is to "look for number one." We need a new ethos in our economy, and institutions that will enforce that ethos, based on the notion that we have a responsibility to care for others, and that anyone running corporations, banks, insurance companies, health care institutions, food, or energy related institutions has an obligation to put the common good at the top of their agenda when making decisions, and should be held legally responsible when they instead make decisions based solely on advancing their own profits and not on the welfare of the public which they serve. We need to develop mechanisms to reward those people and those institutions that do make caring for others and social responsibility a high priority when making decisions in the board room or in the way that they conduct their economic life. And we need A New Bottom Line, so that institutions and social practices are judged rational, efficient, and productive not only when they maximize money or power, but also when they foster love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological responsibility, and enhance our capacities to respond to the universe with awe and wonder. And if we need to bail out corporations, then we the people whose taxes are going to do this ought to have the right to own those corporations which, if the claims we are being given are true, would have collapsed without out money and gone bankrupt. Regulation, fine -- but those corporations should, if they need our money, but under our democratic control.

2. War is the wrong path to achieve security while generosity and caring for others is the right way, so while we intend to keep a strong military on our shores, we should give equal weight to an equally important strategy: showing that we genuinely care about others, repenting and paying for the damage we did to Iraq, and exploring the possibility of a new Global Marshall Plan that would dedicate 1-2% of the Gross Domestic Produce of the advanced industrial countries each year for twenty years (with the financial help of other G-8 countries) to once and for all end both domestic and global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate health care, and repair the global environment. This is House Resolution 1078 introduced by the first Muslim in the Congress, Keith Ellison, and the details of the plan can be read here. Can we afford it? If we could afford an $85 billion to bail out AIG corporation for the sake of its

3. Saving the environment is not an optional choice but a pressing need, both because our biblical mandate to care for the planet is being undermined by Republican policies that give priority to the rich and the corporations, but also because our future and the future of our children is being undermined at this very moment by polluting our waters, our air, and the products we consume.

4. We not only need to give better pay and attention to teachers, smaller classrooms, and better facilities, but we need to give equal attention to building a new curriculum in our schools that teach how to care for others and the environment, how to communicate in a non-violent way, and teach basic values like generosity, gratitude, responsibility, respect for others, forgiveness when we've been hurt, and how to respond with awe and wonder to the grandeur and mystery of the universe are miseducating our youth.

5. We need to reject the voices in the Democratic party and in the liberal and progressive world who do not adequately understand the legitimate hunger of people for meaning and purpose in their lives that can transcend the materialism and selfishness of the competitive marketplace. There is a religio-phobia in some sectors of the Left in this country that we must challenge, even though we understand that some of it comes from a righteous indignation at the way that some elements of the religious community have forgotten the message of love and caring of the Bible or the Koran and have instead used religion asa justification for sexism, racism or homophobia. We reject that kind of interpretation of misuse of religion, but we must no longer allow ourselves to be portrayed as anti-religion or insensitive to the hunger that Americans have for a return to the traditional values of love, kindness, generosity, individual as well as social responsibility, gratitude, and forgiveness of each other's transgressions. We must affirm unequivocally that we want to strengthen families and create a world that sustains and supports loving commitments rather than only prizes the lone individual out for him or her self. And we intend to challenge overtly the elitism that leads some people in our society to dismiss others who disagree with them as on some kind of lower intellectual or spiritual level. We are populist not only economically, but also in spiritual terms, validating the spiritual hunger of the American people, and on their side in the struggle against the forces that destroy community, family and love.

The point here is that not only must Obama return to his visionary self in order to re-activate the many young people who for a while thought his campaign was about something new (but who have lost some of their excitement as Obama has made compromise after compromise with the ideology of militarism and taking care of the powerful at the expense of the powerless), but that he must do so in a way that appears to be solidly behind a progressive worldview, not apologetically trying to sneak it in bit by tiny bit while allowing the Republican worldview to dominate the ideological debate. When he gets into the television debates, for example, he should actively question the assumptions in questions raised by the television-stars who "moderate" them.

The realists will say, "first get him elected, then we'll raise these more visionary issues." But what I've learned is that it is precisely the willingness of the Republicans to tie their programs to their own value system that makes sense to ordinary people, and that if the Democrats were to start doing that also, and appearing to be hard and tough behind an alternative worldview to the militarism, selfishness and materialism that has been presented as the "common sense" of contemporary political discourse, they would be more effective and more likely to win votes in this election. Doing so would strengthen the hope part of the consciousness of everyone, whereas appearing inconsistent or weak in advocating for what I've described above (and what I call a "spiritual progressive" agenda which we've defined more fully in the Network of Spiritual Progressives' "Spiritual Covenant with America" at strengthens fear.

On the other hand, the video released by Obama on the economic crisison Sept. 17 doesn't really do much to strengthen our more hopeful side. His remedies are superficial and traditional and don't really focus much on what can be done to challenge the ethos that led us to this mess. He talks about greater levels of regulation (and so does McCain -- wow, what an interesting snoozer as they debate exactly which regulations or regulatory bodies will do the best job). He says that we shouldn't be spending money in Iraq on the war, but then he doesn't take the war is the wrong approach, but instead says "we shouldn't be spending our money there -- it should be brought home and spent here" (as though we already were spending too much abroad and needed to concentrate on taking care of ourselves more). Far from sounding visionary and hopeful, Obama sounds like an upbeat technocrat. So soon the argument will be "how much regulation is too much" and "how much spending abroad is too much" instead of about what values guide our economic and foreign policy thinking. No wonder if those are the discussions we will hear, more people will find excitement in talking about Sarah Palin! And more people will think that the message of ending wars and militarism is just utopian nonsense, and that will make them more inclined to listen to McCain who will make his case as someone more experienced in handling things from within the militarist paradigm.

In short, moving to the Center politically is counter-productive not only because it is morally incoherent but because it strengthens the very fears in people about the possibility of a world based on peace and generosity and caring, and hence strengthens the appeal of the McCain/Palin rhetoric of being tougher than anyone else on the planet. For Obama to try to compete on that terrain has proven to be a big mistake. In each area of his political agenda he needs to articulate how his specifics flow from a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with the selfishness, materialism, "looking out for number one" and militarism that has dominated national debate and which always tips in favor of Republicans or conservative Dems. If he keeps hammering at the differences in worldview, and does so in ways that employ the language of the spiritual progressives and the religious traditions of the American people, we will see the expected surge in his support because of the economic meltdown turn into a permanent and landslide-ish level victory.

The answer of liberals has typically been: "the American people are too selfish, stupid or reactionary, so Obama has to be careful and just hint at what we fully believe. They would never buy these lovely ideas that we believe in."

Here we get to the second major mistake of the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Their contempt for the American people, manifested in their unwillingness to say clearly what they really believe (e.g. that the war in Iraq is not just a tactical but a moral error, or that a budget that under funds the needy is an ethical distortion, or that allowing the marketplace to destroy the global environment is a sin not just a question of differences in economic theory) is immediately understood by the rest of the population as elitism and disrespect.

What I learned in my research was that a large group of Americans feel disrespected at work and disrespected in many of the encounters they have with others. They can feel that the Republicans are telling them their own truth--that militarism and self-interest are the key to a good world, but that Democrats are not telling their truth--that love and generosity are the key to a good world--because the Democrats disrespect them so much that they feel that "ordinary Americans" couldn't possibly respond to their message if they told it straight. It is this disrespect that gets triggered by Democrats' caution (they even pick a vice-presidential candidate like Joe Biden who has been hawkish rather than peace- and generosity-oriented whereas the Republicans pick a woman who actually embodies their values). It's not which of these sets of values are better that matters to many people as much as which choice reflects respect for the American people. To the extent that the Dems hide who they are, it's easy to tag them as elitist scum.

Look at the coming debates through this framework: how much has Obama challenged the fundamental worldview of the Right versus how much is he trying to show that he can manage the existing military and economic system within its current set of assumptions. And how much does he speak to the heart of people, not just to their heads, appealing to their better instincts while clearly defining what is wrong with the market materialist and militarist worldview.

So it comes down to this: recognizing that our well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet, affirming that love and caring are not "soft" but powerful ways of living as individuals and as a nation, rejecting fear-based ideologies (that people will always only care about themselves), and developing respect rather than dismissive elitist attitudes towards those with whom we disagree politically. Until the Democrats get this and convince everyone else that they do, the once again put themselves in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of , Chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives and author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right, Healing Israel/Palestine, and The Politics of Meaning (and eight other books). He is rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue which conducts High Holiday and Friday night services in San Francisco, and Torah study Saturday mornings in Berkeley. He welcomes your feedback after you've read through those two websites.

Comments

[snesich]

Michael Lerner is brilliant, insightful, compassionate. (However, I have to point out that this piece needs some serious editing. There are some obvious mistakes in sentence structure and grammar.)

I agree with Michael, but what he is talking about is a very long term proposition. You can't essentially reawaken a dormant consciousness in the next few weeks for millions of people. And we know what would happen if Obama spoke explicitly, in the heat of the campaign, as you advise: He'd be branded as "weak", "naive", "typically liberal", etc. Every right-wing smear you can think of and then some.

In an Obama administration, these themes can be sounded and spoken, over and over. Witness the effect John F. Kennedy had upon Americans, particularly young ones, when he encouraged and challenged them to commit themselves to public service and to making America the dynamic, positive example for all humanity. Consciousness raising, appealing to what is best in our fellow Americans, working to reawaken that part of each human being that feels genuine compassion for, and connection to, other fellow humans, is something that needs to be addressed, over time, in a hundred different ways, by the president and many, many others.

Like it or not, the overall "framing" of issues in a presidential campaign, the "markers and expectations" that define the qualities expected of the president, are already set in place---some would say set in concrete. Obama HAS to play within those parameters. He has no choice.

[gypsy508]

Wow this is refreshing. Judging by the comments here though the Democrats still like playing the blame game. Truth is, Obama would win in a landslide if he stood up and had a plan, any plan. Some people like to blame the Republicans for everything. Others take one step further in their intelligence and realize both parties are full of it.

[bogues]

Why isn't McCain winning by a landslide?

[odoreida]

McCain will win by a landslide. Any percentage of error in the polls favors McCain.

[StillIRise]

I agree that both parties are complicit in the failures of our government. However, I disagree with your argument that Obama has not presented a plan! Senator Obama has presented detailed plans on taxes, on health care, on education, on the Iraq war, on the war in Afghanistan, on Pakistan and Iran, and on the war on terrorism in general. He's presented detailed plans on addressing our energy crisis and as recently as today, has presented plans and proposals on remedying our economic crisis. In fact, both President Bush and John McCain have adopted some of Senator Obama's plans as their own. Realizing that both parties are responsible for the mess we're in does not or should not translate into diminishing the substance of Senator Obama's campaign, whether you agree with it or not. Intelligent people can both recognize the accountability of both parties and still recognize the comprehensive plans of both candidates as well. It's like walking and chewing gum at the same time!

[Bluedanube]

Why isn't Obama far ahead in the polls? It's a very easy answer. A corrupt and complicit corporate media with their high priced celebrity newsreaders.

[odoreida]

Aside from Fox, most of the TV networks and newspapers seem to prefer Obama.

[MsMeryMac]

Do you have anything to back up your opinion? Because I assume you're talking about the same media outlets that will routinely play McCain's "sensational" ads, just to prove how over-the-top they are, thereby giving him free advertising? Or the ones who have been talking about Palin for the last two weeks?

[ladyfractal]

Rabbi Lerner:

While I appreciate the depth of your analysis, I take issue with it on a number of fronts.

1> The issue with religion. I am one of those non-religious Americans whom some on the left wish to blame for electoral defeats. While you claim (perhaps in all honesty) that YOUR interpretation of religious scriptures is correct, I am ALSO one of those gay people who the Religious Right wants excluded from America. I don't know what your experience has been, Rabbi, but seeing as you live in my former city, I will tell you this; I have been at SF General consoling the partner of someone beaten up by people who believe they were doing God's work.

2> The anti-intel­lectualism in American politics has gone far enough. We've TRIED the idea that the more educated you are, the less qualified you are for national office and where did that get us? We've walked down the path that the more non-Bible books you read, the less decent of a person you must be and what has that gotten us? It's given us Bush, McCain and Palin and a raft of similar characters. Why should those of us who value intellect, believe that it's a *good* thing to read widely and often, pretend that it isn't?

Cheers
LF

[DAE]

Sorry Michael, for all your learned discourse you miss the point. The Thuglicans know how to manipulate people's fear and loathing. Look at the completely disingenuous and dishonest McCain campaign. Thuglicans go for the jugular and could care less about anything else. They are the school bullies of American politics and the school bully rules unless you fight back or the principal steps in. Unfortunately our principal (the Supreme Court and the Media) are the bullies mom and pop. So unless the dems get down and dirty and talk Keating and blast McCain out of the water by using as much mud as McCain does the election will be too close to call.

[JiminJersey]

Rabbi, some good points. Dem candidates need to hide who they are and this renders them inauthentic to the average American. I believe this is something that is impossible to hide even to casual observers over the course of a Presidential campaign.

The leads me to the second problem with your analysis. Our capitalist system does not promote selfishness and greed. Sure these attributes can help someone succeed but if that's all they have going for them, then likely they will fail. You see, capitalism has led this country and the world to a level of material success that 100 years ago would have been unimaginable. Further, it has provided the means to virtually eliminate poverty in this country. (Before you liberals go crazy you must always ask yourself, "compared to what?") It is the engine by which America has become the single greatest provider of charitable giving the world has ever seen. And the private sector provides far and away the lion's share of this charity.

This is the big mistake that liberals always make. You want the force of government and law to mandate your good intentions, rather than allow them to work themselves organically. Your intentions may be in the right place but your strategy for achieving them is flawed. You impugn the motives of people because they don't share your world view of how to achieve your goals. And this is where the liberal elitism becomes your problem. People don't appreciate being falsely demeaned.

[gypsy508]

Charity? In the form of health care for its citizens? Have you seen the poor in the streets? Greed is America's defining trait.

[JiminJersey]

gypsy508,
You are inadvertantly reinforcing my point. You think the government should provide health care for all and that anyone that doesn't agree with you is greedy. I also want health care for all but I believe the best way to achieve that is through the private sector and that the government is the least able to do a good job. You see we share similar goals but believe in different ways to achieve them. That does not make me a greedy or malicious person.

Secondly, greed is not America's defining trait. You couldn't possibly be more wrong about that. In fact the reverse is most certainly closer to the truth. But hey, don't let me get in your way of some good old America bashing.

[Clavis]

Considering the economic devestation caused by the unregulated chicanery of the private financial sector, I'd say your Cato Institute screed is a little bit misplaced right now.

Maybe you need to get your head out of that idealistic cloud and recognize that some of the most recent powerful and influential financial characters in our nation's history were crooks, not benefactors. Jeff Skilling and Charles Keating and the like aren't making millions because they know that somehow, indirectly, it will lead to fewer poor people. They're doing it because they're greedy psychopaths, and the current system encourages them to be so.

But maybe you're right -- maybe we should go back to the days when the free-market system brought us the Triangle Shirt Factory fire and child labor and shanty-towns... good idea! I guess you're right -- the rich and powerful *are* the best stewards of America!

[JiminJersey]

Maybe a little investigation would be required before assuming you know what it is and who is to blame. But that might take more effort than you're willing to put into it when you can just blame greedy psychopaths and the unregulated capitalist system and feel better about your moral superiority. This problem stems directly from the overly regulated financial sector and more specifically, the corrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organizations that cooked the books and put this whole collapse into motion. And by overly regulated I mean the liberals passing laws dictating how to introduce loans into markets that were less likely to be repaid. And guess who was in charge of these organizations?

Last I checked Skilling was in jail so I don't see how the system encouraged him to behave in the way he did.

Our economic success allows that we as a society no longer require our children's employment to live comfortable lives. There are places in this world where that is not true and I have seen them. In countries like Egypt where children are in school for 8 hours a day but they are not learning things like our kids are. They are sitting in front of looms weaving rugs that can be sold for a profit. They call them schools but they are child labor factories. You need to gain some perspective and examine why you are so quick to blame free enterprise and political freedom.

[opinion123]

Guess what? If Jesus returned to this earth and happened to be Black, the Christian Right would crucify him again. Only this time, they would use a noose! We were all created to be of one race, the human race. It's the same as we are all Americans. Yeah, right! There are so many idiots that see only color as the stake that gives the advantage over all of God's other people. How stupid is that, when no one can find a white person on the entire face of the earth. And thought we are not really Black, we are people of an enormous range of colors of which I am proud. Is that why McCain's VP installed a tanning bed in the State Mansion. She too gain wanted some color! Hates people of color but yet wants to be colored and maintain the 'white' enhancement - so she thinks. I get so infuriated when I see the so called evangelical right wing consistently making God out to be a liar and stupid. They seem "hell bent" on changing his plan. The irony is that the cult followers of people like Dobson pay big bucks to listen to this crap. He surely isn't waiting on heaven for his reward, he's a wealthy man for spewing hate and living like a king.

[ceti]

Well, we have had several elections especially since 1992 where Democrats and Republicans are barely distinguishable. This is what happens when the country becomes dominated by a two-party corporate state, where the Democrats play as a B-Team to the Republicans. And why have a B-Team when you can have the A-Team of politics?

Lehrner is right in identifying the spiritual-political void exists in America, and this is a direct consequence of the narrowing of the democratic options and the convergence of the two parties. This is the same problem afflicting many Western democracies where the right wins elections over a weak center and center-left by playing on the darker angels of our nature. The issue is corporate rule that has merged with the latent prejudices­,ignorance­, and racism of the American public to bring the Republic to its abyss.

[realmccain]

Interesting ideas. A candidate ran with the exact message you are talking about. He was an affable, compassionate democrat, with great experience, and to top it off he was a former professional athelete! His name was Bill Bradley.

So yes, if Obama wants to go the way of Bill Bradley in talking about "let's be less materialistic", "let's be less self centered", good luck. First of all, liberals are already perceived as too focused on that type of thing. Only a republican could get away with saying "let's be more compassionate" (Bush). That kind of talk when it comes from a democrat is just perceived as blaming the "culture of america", and people aren't anywhere near ready for that kind of message. And especially coming from an African American candidate who did not grow up in the continental 48-- criticizing the "culture of self-centeredness and greed" in america just would never fly.

People need to stop doing monday morning quarterbacking. No democrat in this day and age could possibly sail through an election. And certainly no african american democrat. This is hard! It's going to be hard! It's not going to be a slam dunk, and anyone suggesting that this should be a slam dunk for Obama is completely ignorant about America.

[WolfLady]

Yasher ko’ach, Rabbi. Nice sermon, interesting analysis of what’s amiss. Here’s mine:
The electorate is tainted with too many brutish slope-browed Kallikaks whose close-set eyes are fogged with dimwit resentment of anyone too sophistica­ted/intell­igent to subsist on a steady diet of bigotry, religion, pork rinds and reality shows. If this was a movie it would be “Revenge of the Dull Normals”, starring John McCain as the Addled Fud and Sarah Palin as the gun-toting Apostolic Strumpet in her leather mini and CFM shoes.
DRILL, BABY, DRILL! YEEE-HAW! (Gimme another g****m beer, Vern.)
~WolfLady~

[sadiehawkins]

Wolflady.
You are brilliant!! very well put

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

I see that he is pointing out that the elitists, because they are truly elite, should handle the rabble in a more gentle manner. But then again he resorts to double-speak and says that this is the second great problem with liberals - if you're following, the answer to the first problem IS the second problem. But what he suggests simply boils down to exploitation of the simple, as any good religion has done for a couple millennium. Fortunately the elite are above such petty exploitation and will good naturedly, if understandably misunderstood by the rabble, continue to try to lift them from their abject daily existence in the distorted lows and highs of those who play on their fears and hopes. Unlike their Republican elite counterparts who have become so adapt at the manipulation that religion dances on the other end of their own puppet strings to Republican whim.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

What he fails to understand is that every time the liberal elite reach to debate and raise-up the right-ist rabble that they wrap themselves in their conservative blanket and dig in - this is what is viewed dismissively. The unwillingness of the right to debate openly and honestly and to actually respect civil discourse and the very freedom that this country promises are what keeps this country from moving forward. Unfortunately rabbi, you have called out the wrong side and asked the side that has remained above the filth to get down and wallow in it - to play their game if you will. I hope my arguments have illuminated why we can not, must not, do so.

[thespacecowboy]

One word: Racism.

Try to polish it anyway you'd like, but the heart of the matter is quite that simple.

[StillIRise]

Thank you! The article was much ado about nothing! The only psychodynamic that is impeding Senator Obama's marginal lead is race, and race alone will be the deciding factor in this election.

[ankae]

Race is the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. However, you need to look no further than the exit polls of the democratic primary to see what voters said in PA, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Texas (approx. 20+%)- that race was an important factor.....and these were the ones that were willing to admit it! Imagine how these numbers increase across the US...

A lady in my office said to me that she liked Obama, but she didnt think she was ready to vote for a person of color at the top of the ticket. She said maybe in the next 4 years but she wasnt ready right now. So these type of voters...the "undecided" more than likely when in that booth will not be able to make that leap.

I am actually tired of having this discussion. Could anyone really believe that just 40 yrs ago we were segregated and suddenly we would be rushing to embrace Obama at the top of the ticket? This race is tight because many Americans are grappling today with the question....Am I ready to make this leap...On Nov 4th some will do it and some wont.

[sadiehawkins]

Ditto!!

[StillIRise]

"She said maybe in the next 4 years but she wasn't ready now."

It's odd isn't it how people like this always want more time to do the right thing! What will happen in 4 years to change the heart and mind of your colleague? What is she waiting on to change those things within herself that only she can do, and something that can begin to be changed in an instant, but only if she is willing to do so? As Dr. Martin Luther King said, when we are challenged to do the right thing, the right time to do it is NOW. Those who say that America is not ready for a black president, or that they are not ready to vote for a black president, are simply not ready or willing to change. I recognize that many are not only afraid to change but also afraid of change, and some are merely complacent in their ignorance and prejudice toward blacks and resist change, but change is coming and in many ways is already here, and those who are stuck in their fear or in their complacency will inevitably have to accept it, ready or not!

[Clavis]

And why do the city mice always have to be the peacemakers?

The country mice can have a convention where they all cheer about how much they hate them elitist city mice... and WE'RE supposed to apologize? Give me a break.

[Clavis]

Obama has already given several speeches that were incredibly hopeful, optimistic and honest. He didn't dumb them down or disrespect the voters -- in fact, his speech on race was incredibly mature and adult in how it communicated. Then Sarah Palin comes out and acts all folksy and "small-towny" and the rural voters swoon. Where exactly is the "respect" in McCain cynically and manipulatively choosing Palin to deliberately sway them?

Funny how rural voters can easily "sense" the "disrespect" paid to them by Democrats, but seem utterly incapable of recognizing the contempt felt for them by the Republican heirarchy.

Maybe Democrats just aren't natural fascists...

[naluca]

PS The operative word is "incredible."

[Clavis]

The last two Democratic Presidents were from Plains, Georgia and Hope, Arkansas.

It is a sad fact of America that while the "elitists" in the cities will happily vote for a hayseed or hillbilly if he's the best person for the job, rural and Southern voters stubbornly demand someone who's "jest lahk ME!" and demonize (or allow to be demonized) anyone who isn't like them.

What exactly am *I* doing wrong in this equation? You go on and on about how Democrats are "disrespecting" "working-class" (and that's another BS phrase: I work, too!) voters, yet you never explain how it is that rural voters are so easily disrespected. Maybe if a voter is already prejudiced against intellect, education, cities, coasts, the media, perspective and complex answers to complex questions, what choice do I have?

Here's a simple case study for you: Jimmy Carter being straight with the American people in 1979 about the poor financial situation we were in, vs. Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" routine, which suggested that everything was great as long as we told ourselves it was! Guess who won among the "low-information voters"?

[genia]

I get the point and I think you've got something there.......
Democrats stay on the defensive...instead of embracing we disguise.
Every election it's the republicans who put on the Khakis and the blue denim shirt and become regular folk who deeply care about the working man. They paint the democrats as spenders...as the party that doesn't care .....the party that does not understand­.....caref­ul, the democrats will do you harm. yep, democrats will take your money and give it to those lazy bums who won't work but drive the caddy.
We should embrace our kindness and generosity......we should stress education