Standing up for the heartland [a]

So we all got a hot dose of reality and psychology:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It didn't go over so well. Not surprising from a society that will reem a political figure over recounting the causal chain that our mothers repeat every day of our young lives:
Studying -> good grades -> college and career.
Slacking -> bad grades -> McDonalds or Marines.

But Obama's logic is pretty clear, when things get grey, you go with what you know. In the case of rural Pennsylvanians, that would be guns and isolationism. The same could be said, on a much larger scope, for 1930's America. Indeed, the correlation works at any level of granularity. Personally, I'll retreat to the garage or xbox. My buddy used to 'surf cause it's free' before he became a well-paid chemo-bio-geneto-gineer.

McCain and Clinton labeled his remarks elitist. Funny, his own religion and criticism of free trade have been pretty salient recently, to say nothing for his experience with firearms and immigration issues. Obama seems to have a great deal in common with the people he is 'marginalizing'.

But maybe they're not saying he's an elitist because guns and antipathy have a negative connotation. Maybe he's an elitist because he's analyzing and sympathizing with a demographic. Nobody likes to be evaluated.

There really is no need to analyze the McCain/Clinton logic because none exists. Like Kerry, Obama said something that could somehow be construed as derogatory and they had to capitalize. But this is unfortunate for two reasons.

First, the media spotlight that might otherwise draw attention to economic suffering has been hijacked in order to throw a little dirt.

More fundamentally, Obama identified the abhorrent effects of recession. Perhaps these could be key issues in a country with tanking finances. But instead of expressing concern or at least questioning his logic, the other presidential hopefuls divined an implication that was not there.

McCain emphasized that gun ownership and fundamentalism are a part of rural culture, rather than an effect of poverty. I wonder how he classifies the other issues Obama mentioned, namely isolantionism and xenophobia. By not linking them to financial straits or disproving the correlation, isn't he implying that country folk hate what's different? Clinton, Obama, Paul, Perot. Get on this! He's one of them new-age conservatives that flies jet fighters and goes on those New York tv pro-gruhms.

Support our troops [a]

It used to be that whenever you wanted to win an argument in political discourse, you just had to bring up Nazi Germany. It was the perfect catch-all; compare something to Naziism and it was instantly bad, even if you got the analogy and/or history wrong. So long reductio ad hitlerum, since 2003 the motivation for everything you see and read and hear is based on what is most supportive of our troops.

Sure, it's been an annoyance since day one. If you wanted to be patriotic and non-partisan, you just needed a 'Support Our Troops' emblem. It showed you didn't want Americans to die, but were too busy or stupid to deal with the issues that put them in harm's way.

Almost four years later, after the bumper stickers have faded and the slogans have become a kneejerk response to any discussion of politics at home and abroad, the ineffect of 'supporting our troops' has become lucid. The recent congressional discussions of a devastating and nonbinding resolution to reject the deployment of 20,000 more soldiers has shown that:

• Bringing our boys home will support the troops by removing them from the battlefield.
  
• Sending reinforcements will support the troops by increasing security in Iraq.

Wow, awesome, anything we do short of dumping our petroleum reserves into the Hudson Bay is in support of our troops. That's reassuring. I understand that 'Support Our Troops' is so hot right now, but maybe we'll one day realize that the maxim is:

1. Stale
2. Without argumentative consequence

But it's nice to know our soldiers have been logically separated from the intent to go to war. I recall a few decades ago the kids who were impressed into service were jeered and spat on for their unwilling participation in an unpopular war. But in this unpopular war, they're recognized as mere agents of a greater will. As it should be, people far above them call the shots.

We support our tools (ignore the negative connotation). Tools used by an administration for - whatever goal our involvement in Iraq currently is. And tools used by politicians and car bumpers to distinguish themselves as patriots.