Obama's rhetorical frame: explaining Americans to Americans

[flowomo]

I have tried to take a step back and understand the root cause of Sen. Obama's comments in the so-called "bitter" speech. It seems to me it traces to his rhetorical frame. Let me explain.

Obama is less a politician than a lawyer and teacher. This is not to say he isn't good at "politics," but rather that his primary orientation, by training and intellectual character, makes him more comfortable with, and skilled at, "explaining" complex situations to presumably "objective" listeners -- say, a class of students or a jury. In these situations, the listener stands apart from those being discussed, and the lawyer/teacher is trying to make sense of the behaviors of those being examined. A politician says "you" when he wants to win votes; a politician only says "they" when he wants to criticize or even demonize. A teacher says "you" when he wants to explain what the listener has to do; a teacher says "they" when he wants to explain how and why a social grouping functions.

Obama brings a teacher's rhetorical frame to the political environment -- and sometimes that generates trouble. He did this in the "race" speech -- trying to explain black "anger" and "white" racism, each to the other. He did this in the "bitter" speech -- trying to explain the behavior of Americans struggling economically to Americans who are doing well. In both cases, the word "they" is prominent. As I was typing this, I heard an Obama speech on NPR. He used the word "they" several times.

An inherent problem with the "teaching frame" is that it "objectifies" those being discussed in order to help the students/jury understand particular attitudes or behaviors. A teacher speaks about "the Han Chinese," or "the illiterate, or "those with musical genius" -- whole collections of individuals with a specific and shared history. Biographers do this on an individual level -- objectifying a single person for the purpose of analzying her achievements.

And the teaching frame is not concerned with making judgements -- it only identifies "facts" and illuminates their meaning through whatever academic "lens" is being used (legal, anthropological, biological, historical etc).

Obama believes, and I agree with this, that Americans must understand Americans, in order to forge a working relationship across boundaries of experience and lifestyle. Most politicians just pick a "base" and pitch to it, casting the others aside -- indeed, using "others" as fuel to incite the base. Obama does not -- the whole foundation of "yes, we can" is the potential of unity, or at least of a broader coalition beyond red-blue.

I wouldn't want Obama to change his rhetorical frame -- it is his genuine personal frame, and someone needs to explain Americans to Americans. But we should expect him to face the kind of static arising from the "bitter" speech from time to time. It comes with the method.

I haven't worked this out fully, or explained it very well here, but I put these tentative thoughts out for your consideration and comment.

[2rth2pwr]

1. He was describing the rural folk from PA to group of wealthy San Franciscans

who already have this view. He didn't think anybody was recording.

[anonymous171]

2. So you think everyone is happy and the "economy is strong"?

[JeffR]

3. And don't forget:

The surge is working.

[2rth2pwr]

11. no

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

5. He hasn't shied away from the comments

What makes you think he is upset that he was being recorded, or that he's not savvy enough to understand the YouTube era? He is backing up what he said, continuing to refine the comment and help others understand what he meant, which by the way is completely true.

[2rth2pwr]

24. He's a bigot. These comments to the wealthy Dems about the rube Dems

of PA will open a lot of eyes.

[flowomo]

26. he's no bigot... he's trying to make sense of what we see...

including the self-bigotry and the bigotry directed at others. In fact, I don't think the word "bigot" fits his model of analysis, except in a few cases perhaps. Ithink he sees most "bigotry" as behavior based on experience -- not desirable but explicable.

[OzarkDem]

6. He got caught making bigoted remarks

about a large swath of the population of the US.

He reduced millions of Americans to a stereotype, and a nasty, negative one at that. And you're right, he didn't expect to get caught doing it, but showed his true, ugly self.

[anonymous171]

7. Bad word choice. But what he said was true.

[OzarkDem]

9. So Obama's bigotry is ok with you?

You agree that all people who live in small towns are gun toting, religious fanatics?

You're not a Democrat, then.

[anonymous171]

10. You're exaggerating. He said that because politicians like Bill Clinton screw them over

with NAFTA and the like, they become bitter.

[2rth2pwr]

12. It's not the bitter part. Nobady cares that he says they are bitter.

[anonymous171]

13. Obama cares that they are bitter and wants to change that.

[2rth2pwr]

22. He seems to be good at making people bitter with his words.

[anonymous171]

23. According to Hillary no one is bitter.

[OzarkDem]

18. Bush screwed them with NAFTA

and giving tax incentives to companies to ship their jobs overseas.

Check your facts before you sh*t on fellow Democrats again.

[anonymous171]

20. Who signed NAFTA again?

[Two Americas]

25. no, what he said is not true

Aside from the poor political judgment of making those remarks, they are not true and they perfectly reflect a pervasive bias and prejudicial view that too many upscale liberals have of the American people.

Even in the reddest of red areas, 40-45% of the people are Democrats and are more likely to be old school New Deal Democrats who have been completely abandoned by the party as it has come under the control of upscale suburban professional people. Rural people own guns. Are we to imagine that the Republican voting farmer has guns while the Democratic voting farmer does not? That only Republicans go to church in rural areas? The absurdity of Obama's remarks becomes apparent when we ask those questions.

The local church in rural areas is an important force for support of the community, just as it is in African American areas - the one cohesive force in the community that takes care of people otherwise abandoned by the striving "winners" who wield all political and economic power in the country.

Given the deep prejudice that is held by too many upscale liberal activists, as so clearly illustrated by Obama's remarks, it is a wonder to me that the party still gets 40% of the rural vote. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain for the party were we to forthrightly acknowledge this prejudice - "bigotry" is probably not to strong of a word to describe it - and stop alienating and demeaning millions of people for the sake of the beautiful few being able to feel that they are "right" about their characterizations of their presumed inferiors.

We may have reached the high water mark now for the popularity a particular brand of modern Democratic party politics. Perhaps 15% of the population fits the model of "like minded" progressives, and I do not think that it can grow any larger. Many will still vote Democratic, despite the arrogance and self-righteousness of that small group that controls the political discussion on the left, but as I said it is a wonder to me, and a testament to the deeply held allegiance and loyalty that many of us have to the legacy of the party and its traditional principles and ideals that we continue to support the party in spite of the abuse, and in spite of the ongoing drift of the party to the right on the important issues of economics and power.

We are playing with fire to completely give the party over to the arrogant upscale aristocracy of liberalism, and the more we scream "but we are right! They ARE all a bunch of knuckle-dragging gun-toting fundies!!" the worse the party will do. There can be no doubt that this is exactly what Obama and his supporters and defenders on this are saying. "It is time we tell the truth! Our fellow Americans are a bunch of idiots!" This plays very strongly with the upscale lifestyle liberalism professional crowd - it appeals to their emotions and fits their narrow and prejudicial world view, but it is absolute poison with the general public and has little if anything to do with Democratic party politics.

[Kittycat]

39. Then we're all guilty here of the same.

For years we've been aggitated with issues voters, that vote against their own self interests, trying to understand why - for what purpose. Well, it's clear - they have nothing else to cling to. The government has failed them on every level - all they have left to believe in is their religion, their right to bare arms (as many are hunters), and their personal freedoms... the only thing they have left. They don't have jobs, or decent incomes, or futures for them or their children. And of course they don't trust the government at all.

[Texas Hill Country]

33. yeah, this makes it worse actually.

[Skidmore]

37. Plenty of rural people are listening and agreeing with him.

Actually, he hasn't said anything different that he said in this rural state we call Iowa where we stood for him in record numbers. Remember the first time Hillary got handed her butt on a platter?

We heard him and agreed with him.

[Aloha Spirit]

4. Thanks for the post--

kind of like the difference between
someone articulating something that I inherently sense but haven't quite grasped
VS
someone saying something as fact that I sense is not true but want to believe.

[sniffa]

8. Excellant post

It's refreshing to have this kind of politician. :thumbsup:

[BumRushDaShow]

14. The one major flaw with your argument is that

he has practiced law and has had to make arguments before a jury. Meaning that he has had to learn to tap into the mindset of groups and individuals and sway them to his arguments.

One cannot deny headlines that have been blasted across the pages the past couple days:

Middle class Americans feel worse off than five years ago (AP) http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-middle-class-worse-offf-pew-study-apr9,0,5310022.story?track=rss

Gauge of consumer confidence falls to 26-year low (Bloomberg) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ12apr12,1,887561.story

These stories reinforce what he has stated - and particularly that latter story that takes us back to a time during Reagan and 1982. Researchers and pollsters have already provided the data that bolsters the argument. The economy is in shambles and for candidates to continue to deny that - particularly McLame - and to sugar-coat it - Clinton - is a death knell. The sheeple have been sugarcoated to and denied for far too long. This is why the electorate has woken up. Not everyone, but by golly, a large segment of them! The turnouts at 45 primaries and caucuses show you that.

He has acknowledged what people are feeling and now comes part 2 - to try to sell them on how they can help fix the problem.

He would rather "Teach a man to fish."

Alternately, Clinton and McLame would rather give the man the fish and keep him dependent so they can continue to wield their control. Learning how to fish when never having done it before, or trying to pick up that pole to try again after so long a time of not having done it, AIN'T easy. It's hard as hell. But for the long term, it will give that man independence.

[flowomo]

15. I made it clear that his frame comes from his lawyering...

And his teaching law. I'm not sure you addressed my point about how lawyers think: they have to persuade juries, not the defendants, or the defendants' families. They talk about "they" (defendants) to presumably objectives listeners, juries.

[futureliveshere]

16. Well written.. We need his objective style rather than a rabble rousing HRC or fear mongering McC

[flowomo]

41. we at least need to see if the time for it has come....

and it looks like we'll have a chance to see.

[futureliveshere]

17. K&R

[Two Americas]

19. red and blue

Red and blue exists for a reason, it is not merely a matter of children not playing nicely together. The Republicans "picked a base" - the wealthy and powerful few - and they relentlessly advance the interests of that small group at the expense of the rest of the population. The only way for the Democratic party to build "unity," or "a broader coalition beyond red-blue" is to start representing and defending the rest of the population - to "pick the base" of the 90% of us who live paycheck to paycheck and are struggling to survive and who are under all out attack by the wealthy and powerful few.

The political war in this country is not about "boundaries of experience and lifestyle" and it about justice and equality, and politics is about economics and power, not lifestyles, preferences or choices. There is an inherent and implicit bias and prejudice in seeing politics as a matter of lifestyle - only the better off few can indulge themselves in worrying about their lifestyle or what someone else's lifestyle is. One must be entirely disconnected and disengaged from the realities most people are facing to think that the political struggle is a matter of style rather than substance. It is demeaning and paternalistic to have upscale people lecture the rest of us about this, and that condescension and paternalism from modern liberals is precisely why people vote Republican - to reject and resist being treated as though they were little children in a class room.

Viewing reality from the college lectern, perhaps it seems that Americans need to be lectured and told who they are, but the condescension and arrogance of that view is truly stunning.

[flowomo]

27. But what if the "lecturer" is your best hope?

You fixate on the "condescension" and "arrogance" of modern liberals -- but the Republicans to whom the working class have turned (see: "What's the Matter with Kansas") are not helping them. In fact, they promote this "resentment" of liberals precisely because they don't want the paycheck-to-paycheckers to see that people like Obama -- and Clinton and Edwards -- are actually offering the opportunities they want.

[Two Americas]

28. of course

Of course the Republican party is no friend to the working class.

There are two problems with your analysis: first, best hope for what? For whom? We have run professor Gore, then professor Kerry, and now professor Obama. All brilliant men, decent men, but completely inappropriate in style and sentiments and prejudices for politics. They are darlings to us, because they reflect our prejudices and sentiments, lifestyle and tastes. They are anathema to the general public. Even IF they ran on platforms that bore any resemblance to those from the past that were based on the traditional ideals and principles of the party, they would still be tough sells. But failing to run on a strong left wing political platform and being effete and scholarly is a deadly combination for the success of the party.

Secondly, it is a cultural war we insist upon engaging in - and we are playing right into the hands of the right wingers - not a political battle. There is a deep hypocrisy involved in this. On the one hand, we are told that we cannot go "too far" to the left on issues of economics and power, the only areas that politics has always historically addressed, because that is "not practical." Supposedly, we would lose elections because the public is too conservative. So we compromise there, despite the fact that surveys have shown that on matters of power and economics, 60-80% of the general public is far to the left of the Democratic party and the liberal activists community. But then on issues of the cultural battle, such as "guns" and religion, there is to be no compromise, because we are right, and even if we lose - we are still right, and we settle for that and then go through the hand-wringing melodrama of self-pity and self-righteousness. "We are right, and if only our fellow citizens were not so stupid, everything would be fine!"

In other words, we place the culture war above the political war in importance, a culture war created by the right wing for the purpose of distracting us and drawing us away from the fight and into an area where we cannot win, and we fight the right wingers in a circus side show and are AWOL on the true battle lines, the battle lines where the right wingers are fighting. We also place being "right" above getting results. The problem is that only about 15% of the population agree with us on that, and it is doubtful that the percentage will ever grow much larger than that.

This disconnection and hypocrisy is the source of all of the confusion and antagonism around here and in the party nationally, and is the cause of the disappointments we keep experiencing and the failures of the party to gain office, or to stand up to the right wingers once they are in office.

We compromise on principle, but not on cultural notions and preferences; we go for the consolation prize in politics - being "right" - rather than results; we fight the culture war tooth and nail, but are absent in the real battle that the right wingers are waging against us - class warfare; we support style over substance, and see the various professors we nominate as "our kind of people" and to hell with politics; we want to prove that we are more intelligent, by exaggerating and dramatizing the differences between ourselves and others - alway with us as the superior ones - rather than using our intelligence to help our fellow brothers and sisters in the working class.

[flowomo]

30. who has impressed you as the kind of candidate we need?

It would help me understand your position if I knew who embodied the approach you recommend.

[Two Americas]

35. no problem

Thank you for asking. I don't think we should be looking for an ideal candidate - I think that is the problem, not the solution. We have had ideal - and idealized - candidates in Gore, Kerry, and Obama.

I think the failure is ours. We have confused our preferences and prejudices for a political platform, and are trying to be "right" in a culture war rather than engaging in pragmatic and effective politics.

I supported Edwards, but he was far from an ideal candidate, and easy for the liberal activists to tear down.

We have a problem - the candidate that most appeals to the relatively narrow segment of the population, the liberal activists, appeals least to the general public. What we need to do is to embrace a principled platform on political issues, not culture war issues.

Gore, Kerry, or Obama all could and should win in a landslide, were we pressuring them and if we had their back on taking positions on power and economics that were even remotely left wing, rather than asking them instead to fight for us on culture war issues. I don't blame Obama, I blame us. Politicians can not get to far ahead of the public, and we are standing between the candidates and the public and suppressing and corrupting the process. 60-80% of the public is far to the left of the activists community on all issues of power and economics. We squander that advantage when we insist on fighting on guns and religion, while taking Republican-lite positions on issues of economics and power.

A New Deal platform right now would win in a landslide, and would have with any of the candidates that ran this year. Democratic candidates would run on that platform, and the public would support it, were the activist community standing for and demanding that instead of blocking it and insisting that there positions on the culture wars come first.

We can compromise on GLBT rights - but not on telling rural people that they are clinging to their guns and churches. We can compromise of "free trade" but not on "organic choices." Again and again we put our own desires and whims and cultural prejudices above the desperate needs of the people, and above political success. We settle for being "right" in defeat, and then look at our personal options and choices, such as leaving the country - denied to most of the people as an option - once things all go to hell. And they will all go to hell - just watch.

[flowomo]

38. if I read you correctly, any competent candidate would win...

given the conditions you cite. I think that may be right. Candidate-centric systems are prone to all kinds of failures, and the "cult" criticisms leveled at Obama are just one expression of this. But I am not convinced that most people put their economic safety ahead of their "values" positions (religion, for example). Our culture, and one widely shared around the world, puts "what's right" ahead of economic security, though we can't brgin to agree on "what's right." An analogy to patriotism, perhaps: people jump up to "fight the enemy!" even if it risks their lives or the economic safety of their families, whether or not "the enemy" is worth fighting. Or an analogy to heroism: people rush into burning buildings or dash into traffic to save a life even if it puts their own lives in jeopardy because "I had to" or "I had no choice." And the power of religious conviction is enormous, as you know. Value trumps economics in both cases. Again, the question: "What's Wrong with Kansas" seems relevant.

[Two Americas]

40. yes, that is it exactly

It is awful - the Republicans can throw any old loser up for office and win. We obsess over the perfect candidate and then can't understand why we lose.

There is a lot of resistance to looking at this - it cuts too close to the bone. Ironically, the more we lose the more we cling to the losing strategy - some sort of victim of abuse psychology going on there.

The Republicans and their wealthy and powerful clients know exactly where the battle lines are, and are relentlessly fighting. They represent the interests of the wealthy and powerful few at the expense of all of the rest of us. They destroy anything and everything that is of public benefit, and promote everything and anything that helps the wealthy. Why do we refuse to counter that? It is not a matter of framing, it is not a matter of money, it is not a matter of finding the right candidate, it is a matter of generating the political will and getting clarity.

The right wingers have fought a good battle and have been clever to some degree, but most of the fault lies with us. The people are already on our side in overwhelming numbers, and despite controlling the media. cheating, and being much better organized and focused than we are, much more driven to get results, and having much more clarity about the nature of the battle and much more determination to win, still the Republicans can only get about 50% of the population on their side. The most infinitesimal amount of willingness to take up the class struggle would tip the balance, and a whole hearted commitment to the interests of the working class would rout the Republicans for a generation. Yet we don't do that. Why not? I believe it is because the party at all levels, and modern liberalism in general, is dominated and controlled by a relatively small upscale group of people - about 15% of the population - self-described as "economic conservatives and social liberals." Since politics is about economics, and since that is the battle the Republicans are fighting, we are compromised and weakened right from the start. We fight the culture war battles - which the Republicans don't even care about, but just use for political purposes - and that obscures the fact that on the important issues, the Democrats are not very different from the Republicans and are as out of step with and antagonistic to the needs of the people as the Republicans are.

[Armstead]

21. Therer's a level to this that you left out

Neither his race speech nor his latest comments were self generated.

Instead, they were his way of countering the crap that was laid on him. The viral Wright videos and now the remarks he made at a fuindraiser in response to a question.

His basic modus operandi has been political. That's "The Speech."

He used the rhetorical mode you noted to respond, explain and ultimately defuse the attacks against him.

To me that is more impressive, because rather than responding in kind to shallow and misleading political attacks, he did effectively use his explanatory mode to fight back and actually elevate the tone of politics in the process. And it seems to be working.

[knixphan]

29. well - said, flowomo

And it's time we all got together and backed up the professor, with our votes, our dollars and our voices!

[Voice for Peace]

31. I think you're right on with this.

And it's very well explained. Thanks, K&R

[Texas Hill Country]

32. interesting theory with good analysis, but i am gonna guess that this will not go over well for long

I know I dont want a teacher, i want a prez

[flowomo]

34. I share your concern on that...

I didn't put this in the OP, but I'm not sure this approach works ultimately. Imagine Obama trying to "explain Americans to Iranians" -- what might he say about "us" that will be "true" and "objective", but politically inflammatory here at home. I don't know.

[rucky]

36. You did explain it well.

and I think you've hit on something.