Hillary Clinton: The Candidate of Ignorance
Because of the nature of the candidates and the long tradition of identity-based politics in the Democratic Party, many attempts have been made to parse the Democratic primary electorate on racial and gender. But today at TPM, Josh Marshall gets at what seems to be the most accurate way to identify the die-hard core of Hillary Clinton’s base: the uneducated and even the downright ignorant.
This theory has the virtue of any good theory in that it explains everything that the identity-based theories explain plus a bit more. Like the identity-based theories, it explains why Obama has a hard time among white working-class voters. But it improves on the identity-based story by explaining why that identity-based deficiency in Obama’s appeal does not appear to be consistent across regions. Obama’s poor showing in West Virginia is not matched in other states like Ohio and Pennsylvania if we use solely a racial or class-based lens. But what is consistent across all regions seems to be Obama’s appeal among the well-educated precincts surrounding colleges and universities, but very poorly among demographics where education levels are low, especially in regions like Appalachia. Of course no one has the data to do a statistically rigorous study, but the county-by-county correlation between education level and support for Obama seems to be pretty high when you look at Marshall’s graphics.
The question for Democrats and others concerned with the Democratic Party primary is then this — do you really want to let the worst-educated, least-knowledgeable and most bigotry-prone components of the voting pool (including those who stubbornly insist that Obama is a Muslim) control the direction of the party to the point of overriding the outcome in pledged delegates? Do you really want to give Hillary Clinton a pass in regards to her ignorantly racist supporters that you would never give to Obama in regards to Rev. Wright or Ron Paul in regards to Stormfront? And do you really want to say, as Hillary media proxy Paul Begala did, that a coalition that includes well-educated “eggheads” is somehow a bad thing?
Democrats used to promote education as a virtue to the point even of wanting to ridiculously overspend government dollars on it at every opportunity. But now a large part of the party obstinately insists that the educated are those that should be sneered at and ignored. In short, they have embraced the anti-intellectualism long present on the far right. And none of Hillary’s supporters seem to mind.
Marshall’s late to the game. Michael Barone was there long weeks ago.
Do you really want to give Hillary Clinton a pass in regards to her ignorantly racist supporters that you would never give to Obama in regards to Rev. Wright or Ron Paul in regards to Stormfront?
I’m so glad you said this, Jason. I have been thinking it for a long time, and nobody else seems to be commenting on the double standard being applied here.
So those who don’t vote for Obama are ignorant fools? Peer pressure won’t work. It is alienating those of us who still refuse to give up our own minds. I am a middle class Pennsylvania person who is intelligent. I believe that Clinton is our only hope in leading us out of this recession and all that entails and she will be best in leading us out of Iraq. Isn’t it funny that my son went to Iraq, my children have college loans that are equal to a house loan payment, they don’t have insurance and prices and energy are hitting us all harder yet I still won’t vote for Obama? It is because I want the best for our country and Obama isn’t it. To insult me is reverse racism and it isn’t making anything better. It sickens me. I won’t be led as sheep to the slaughter. Insult me all you want, it’s not going to help. Those that are pushing Obama will win his nomination, it’s money and power and the fear of the superdelegates that they will be called racist if they don’t vote for him, but it is not what it good for this country.
Jason, I’d submit for your consideration that one reason that the more educated Democrats might be breaking for Obama is that they tend to be ideologically more liberal; until recently he’s run a bit to the left of Hillary and his history certainly suggests more alliance with the left wing of the party. If that’s the case, then isn’t it a bit crass to suggest that this means that the remaining group, the less liberal Democrats, who also happen to be overrepresented in the less educated demographic groups, are actually breaking more toward Hillary because of ignorance rather than perhaps considering that those people have been less influenced by liberal academia?
How do you define the "die-hard core" of someone’s base, Jason? Couldn’t one just as easily say that the "die-hard core" of Obama’s base are radical leftists and black radicals who want to see the existing social order up-ended? That sounds like content-free ranting to me.
If you want to make the argument that Sen. Clinton should be viewed with suspicion because she is supported by some racists, by all means do so. But until she starts attending Klan meetings, lunching at whites-only country clubs, and soliciting funds and posing for pictures with white nationalists (like Ron Paul did), please don’t suggest that mere support for her by ignorant Democratic racists is the equivalent of Sen. Obama’s adulthood-long close relationship with Rev. Wright or even his less intimate relationship with the likes of Ayers.
If there was any reason to think that the racists were supporting Hillary because they felt her policies were likely to help their policy goals, that would be good grounds for closer examination (as is the case with the Hamas support for Obama). But to hold their bigotry against Hillary is rather a stretch.
At any rate, you can hardly claim that Hillary’s gotten a free pass for any of this during the election. She’s been criticized in the media for subtle (and not-so-subtle) race-baiting for every bit as long as Sen. Obama’s been criticized for playing the race card.
As for sneering at the educated, Sen. "bitter, clinging" Obama and his supporters have little grounds to criticize anybody for insulting anybody. We shouldn’t worship the uneducated, but neither should we treat them as beneath contempt, suggesting that their votes shouldn’t count, or that their opposition can be dismissed simply because they lack an education.
Christine, I think the allegation that support by the well-educated is simply an artifact of exposure to "liberal academia" is a dangerous one for conservatives to make. It invites the riposte that the educated are more liberal simply because liberalism is a better fit with exposure to a wider range of knowledge. And the conservative presumption that academia is disconnected from the "real world" is based on nothing other than bias and insecurity, from what I have been able to see as a non-liberal in academia. Yes, there are a disproportionate number of wacko liberals in academia, but despite their best (and most authoritarian) attempts, they do NOT in fact exercise the ability to fundamentally transform the minds of everyone who receives a college degree. To assume as such (which the anti-Obama narrative explaining away his support among those with college degrees presumes) is simply a perverse reverse image of the elitism that us edubacated people supposedly hold.
There also appears to be a contradiction within the anti-Obama crusade. On the one hand, all Obama supporters are supposedly dupes that can’t tell that he is just a big fake. You and Michael have told us so dozens of times, supported more recently by our sometime friends from SF. But on the other hand, Obama has all this support from people with an education while the people who are clearly holding obvious misinformation (i.e. “Obama is a Muslim”) and are therefore more likely to actually be easily duped seem to disproportionately support Clinton.
Just like I have to pause out of concern when I find people like Kathy, Shaun, or Michael Moore on the same side, I submit that conservatives should pause out of concern when they find themselves championing the alleged wisdom of the poorly educated and the exclusion as an “egghead” of anyone with a college degree. The conservative revival of the 1980s and 1990s was built upon a foundation of conservative “think tanks” like the Heritage Foundation. Blanket condemnations of education, intelligence, and academia are a poor way to hold on to that heritage. Conservatives slit their own throats when they alienate themselves from a demonized stereotype of “liberal academia” and embrace the false honors of anti-intellectual populism.
And Pat, your non-responsive reiteration of the usual months-old anti-Obama memes is just…tired. It sounds like content-free ranting to me.
Some facts may help this discussion, Jason.
Blacks have a lower average level of education than whites, and lower average wealth. The main pillar of Obama’s coalition is black americans. Therefore his constituency can be labeled as ‘ignorant’ as well.
Does that sound fair?
Also, higher educated americans are generally richer, and come from greater family wealth. They are more prone to the classic ‘liberal guilt complex’. Voting for a black person is very therapeutic for many who were raised in affluence and have had few relationships with black people. I argue that emotional confusion is more influential on their vote than the number of college classes they took.
The ‘ignorance’, by which you really mean bigotry, of which you accuse those who support Clinton - is the reflection of your own soul.
Nope. Across ALL racial categories, Obama has higher support among those with a college degree. Your claim that blacks should be assumed as a group to be uneducated is a rather insulting racial stereotype.
More stereotypes don’t qualify as "facts".
If I ever attributed all disagreement to Obama to a psychological dysfunction, I would be attacked for dozens if not hundreds of comments. I predict those people who would attack me will give you a pass, however, so don’t worry.
If you make any more personal attacks on people here, you will be banned.
Hmmm. Does the "anti-Obama crusade" include everyone who isn’t supporting Obama?
Nope. Only those who make a crusade out of it, such as by incessantly posting repetitive attacks on Obama himself as well as anyone and everyone who would ever DARE support Obama to any degree whatsoever. There are lots of examples in both posts and comments here, if you are legitimately curious.
I figured that was obvious from the inclusion of the term "crusade", but given the propensity of some anti-Obamans to find excuses to take grave offense at every single criticism directed towards them and, well, pretty much every word spoken or written by Obama OR any of his supporters, I probably should have thought to preempt the misrepresentation.
And of course you weren’t denigrating anyone yourself with such a post title as Hillary Clinton: The Candidate of Ignorance. No one could possibly take that as a "blanket condemnation" of their eduction or intelligence, or misconstrue your overt message as being "smart people vote for Obama and only dumb people vote for Clinton, so you’re stupid and ignorant if you don’t vote for Obama."
Nah, no one could ever rationally draw that conclusion. Why, that would be CPD™!
Jason, what we "anti-Obamans" take grave offense at is your lumping us ALL in as anti-Obama crusaders whenever we make some criticism of the man. Yes, I know you’re just fed up with us all, because that’s all you ever see here is criticism of the man. We’ve heard it all before. I didn’t buy it then, I didn’t buy it now. It’s been a very, very long time since you bothered to actually address or respond to any criticism of Obama other than by screaming about the anti-Obama crusade.
Yes, there are a disproportionate number of wacko liberals in academia, but despite their best (and most authoritarian) attempts, they do NOT in fact exercise the ability to fundamentally transform the minds of everyone who receives a college degree
Obviously- but the truth is that some people are influenced by liberalism on campuses, and that influence tends to affect the young (another group voting heavily for Obama) who sometimes become more conservative as they question the liberal ideology over time.
I’m mainly talking about self selection biases that exist within the two groups, Jason- and yes, as a subset of the educated demo group I’d say there are some who’ve been heavily exposed to liberal ideas without a counterforce of intellectual discussion of conservatism. Interestingly I read an article recently (may have even been Kevin at IL?) positing that there are more young conservatives during a time when there’s a popular conservative president, and of course many fewer of them today when Bush is so unpopular- today’s youngest bracket of voters have never really seen a ‘good’ example of conservatism. So I’m simply drawing some inferrences about who is in each group of voters, and what has influenced their thinking.
What I find a bit offensive is to say that someone votes for a certain candidate BECAUSE he/she is ignorant, rather than just acknowledging that there are multitude of reasons, some involving identity politics and some involving actual policy positions, that might lead people in the lower educated demographic group to vote for Hillary. There’s really no way to prove or disprove how much intellectual understanding of the two candidates factors in, just by looking at the education levels. And certainly there’s evidence that the educated people who are supporting Obama are not all doing so for the most rational or intellectually sound reasons.
One point too I think that is being missed about ‘elitism’ is the suffix means something. It’s not that ‘elite’ is thought of as a bad thing, it’s the arrogance of elitism and the exclusion of respect for the unschooled masses that’s being opposed. Elistism is to elite what Christianism is to Christianity, or Islamism to Islam. In each case, you’re talking about people who assert a superiority of their own way of thinking which leads to a belief that no other group is as worthy, and a belief that the ‘others’ will have to accept being ruled by the superior ones because of course it’s for their own good. I certainly understand your concern that the GOP shouldn’t eschew intellectual thought- but they don’t have to embrace the arrogance of it either. It’s also ALWAYS been the case that the most successful politicians can bridge the gap between the highly educated and the less educated- that they are themselves usually part of the first group but have the ability to communicate well with those who aren’t.
I must admit this election confuses me. I see what appears to be a regular, old-fashioned democrat liberal in the Dean, Tsongas, Bradley, Kerry tradition. A candidate with no proven track record, no obvious great-achievements or qualifications, other than that he says the right thing, and acts the right way, and looks the right way.
I think that anyone can hire speech writers and say the right thing in a speech. That is why I go by history and results, and not skin color. Because that is honestly what i see. I see a candidate who would not be leading if he were white. If he did not speak in a Martin Luther King imitative cadence, if he was not ‘very good looking’, ‘cute’, if he was not black, if he was just one more professorial, lawyer, liberal from the big city with nice speeches about unity, he would be nowhere. The fact that he is where he is because of racial identity and pride among black folks, and the fact that this is ignored and thrown back on non-black folks by the media, it all makes this very sad.
I think you missed the boat by overlooking Hillary, the better leader.
See, Pat and Tully, even when I put the modifier "some" in italics, that doesn’t prevent you guys from going off lying about me supposedly talking about "all".
And if a “very very long time” means less than a month (since I posted my own concerns about Obama), then you might have a point there too. But since less than a month is not in fact a “very very long time” AND since ElectionSnark features DAILY digs at Obama (along with everyone else), I guess that is just more false blustering meant to change the subject whenever you see a criticism you don’t want to deal with directly.
Anyway, given the apparent lack of good faith in how you two represent others’ comments on any issue related to Obama, I don’t see any point in responding further to it.
Notably, this is a reversal of the truth. It is the "eggheads" that we are being told by the Clintonistas to ignore and marginalize, not the "unschooled masses". The "unschooled masses" are, we are told, the true representatives of the common person, to be obeyed without question or challenge of any type even when they are found spouting blatant untruths (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim"). The accusation that academics have contempt for the unschooled is a slander against all the professors who work to teach and educate the unschooled.
I haven’t found any pro-Obama person or site arguing that the "unschooled" should be excluded. What I am saying and I stand behind is the idea that lack of education should not be romanticized as some kind of virtue and education treated as a vice, as has been done by many Clinton supporters and conservatives.
If you want to accuse anyone of promoting “exclusion”, perhaps you should focus on the ONLY case of a site directly advocating censorship of those that disagree — it was a pro-Clinton site, if you will recall.
And when Obama had supporters who were racists (Farrakhan, Wright), he was forced to publicly renounce them. Where are the anti-racism critics now that Hillary Clinton is the one featuring some racist supporters? All the sudden they seem to have lost interest in the entire problem of racist supporters. Suspicious timing, that.
Jason can you truly not see a difference between Obama’s 20+ year close history with Rev. Wright and Clinton’s simply being voted for by some racist idiot that she’s never met? When David Duke endorses Clinton and she fails to renounce him, then we’ll talk.
…but the truth is that some people are influenced by liberalism on campuses, and that influence tends to affect the young (another group voting heavily for Obama) who sometimes become more conservative as they question the liberal ideology over time.
The reverse can happen as well. Young people who were raised in apolitical families, or in families that adhered to conservative or right-wing ideology, sometimes move to the left when they leave home and are exposed to a wider range of social and political thought.
Also, it’s a mistake in my view to think that just because you believe liberalism is a flawed ideology that sensible people "grow out of," that others feel that way, or that such a view is even true. I grew up with very liberal parents who instilled liberal values in me and my brother. They were not apolitical. They had strong beliefs, strong core values, and they imparted those values to their children.
I submit to you that young people who "learn" liberal "ideology" on college campuses and then become conservative as they move on in life were never liberal in their deepest values, or in their minds or hearts. People simply do not abandon profoundly felt beliefs that easily.
I haven’t found any pro-Obama person or site arguing that the "unschooled" should be excluded.
Well, I’d say this comes pretty close, for just one example (and obviously I’m not saying that ANYONE is advocating for a set of Jim Crowe laws aimed at literally disenfranchising uneducated white voters, but what I am referring to is a dismissive attitude toward those kinds of voters). Of course like all things that are whispered but not really said outright, stuff like this can be understood one way by a candidates supporters and another way by his opponents. To the supporters of Obama, it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about the ignorance of Appalachian voters as though they should just be written off since they’re not smart enough or they’re too bigoted to vote for Obama. For his opponents, that’s as offensive as Hillary’s supporters stressing her appeal to certain white voters since she basically has to write off the black demographic. Everyone sees the logic in looking at the demographic appeal of their candidate in terms of effects on how the campaign should be run, but when the other candidate’s team and supporters are doing that out loud, suddenly it’s racist or elitist. In both cases, there’s a right and a wrong way to talk about these things, I think- and both sides ought to be more careful to give a more generous reading of the other whenever possible.
It’s a bit of an unfair situation for Clinton, too, since the racial thing works out so that SOME white voters are being dissed but not all- so it doesn’t appear that the race card is really being played. Of course the problem is that when black voters break 90% of more for Obama, then talking about the group that didn’t vote for her INEVITABLY means that she’s talking about blacks. She’s basically doing the same thing as he is in talking about the people that do support her vs. the voters who support him- but since the black vote is monolithic, it ends up being parsed as a racial undertone by her opponents.
Kathy, you seem to have read all sorts of things into my comment that weren’t there. I never said that everyone who goes to university arrives as an apolitical person and then becomes brainwashed, did I? Nor did I say anything about whether or not parents might instill liberal values (you seem to have inferred some sort of slur there, as though I don’t believe that liberals have values- and I never said anything like that.)
I never said that everyone who goes to university arrives as an apolitical person and then becomes brainwashed, did I?
No, Christine, you did not say that. But I did not say you said that. And I can’t find anything in what I wrote that implies what you wrote above. <smile>
Nor did I say anything about whether or not parents might instill liberal values (you seem to have inferred some sort of slur there, as though I don’t believe that liberals have values- and I never said anything like that.)
Okay, well, there, I did feel an implied slur as you state. I did think you were implying that liberalism on college campuses or among young people in general is sort of a fad or a fashion or a passing phase rather than being grounded in real values and beliefs.
So you read my reaction correctly there, and if I was mistaken in what I took from your comments, then I apologize.
No apology necessary; it’s just interesting how different people can read between lines and infer different meanings from comments.
And FWIW:
Okay, well, there, I did feel an implied slur as you state. I did think you were implying that liberalism on college campuses or among young people in general is sort of a fad or a fashion or a passing phase rather than being grounded in real values and beliefs.
You’re partly right about my meaning, because I was trying to say that this is true for SOME students. And I take it that you agree with that because earlier you said:
I submit to you that young people who "learn" liberal "ideology" on college campuses and then become conservative as they move on in life were never liberal in their deepest values, or in their minds or hearts. People simply do not abandon profoundly felt beliefs that easily.
So can we agree that some people have preformed ideas and values prior to college which may or may not change, and that both conservatism and liberalism represent value systems that people might hold as authentic beliefs or they might try them on in a more superficial way and later reject them?
So can we agree that some people have preformed ideas and values prior to college which may or may not change, and that both conservatism and liberalism represent value systems that people might hold as authentic beliefs or they might try them on in a more superficial way and later reject them?
Yes.