Loading ...Obama: Religion is the opiate of the masses, at least in Scranton…
flockwoodSo now, apparently, Barack Obama is channeling the ghost of Karl Marx and the words of Howard Dean. According to the Washington Post, the Democratic presidential frontrunner said:
“But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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.”
Marx said it a lot more succinctly: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”
In July 2004, Howard Dean said it this way: “Sooner or later, voters in places like that (the South) are going to grow tired of voting on guns, God and gays and start voting on education, health care and jobs.”
Obama, most expansive of all, says bitterness, guns, religion, intolerance, xenophobia and protectionism are the drugs of choice for downscale Americans.
Take a look at that last sentence one more time. Small town Americans “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.” Obama’s statement has been branded as condescending and elitist by critics, but it’s a view that’s widely held in some Democratic circles. And it reveals a hostility toward not only rural Americans, but the God of rural America.
Obama apologists will argue that the candidate never said anything negative about religious faith. And technically, they’re correct. He did not explicitly state: “Red State religion is bad.” But given the context, it’s hard to argue that he’s not dissing the religious beliefs of millions of Americans.
This reminds me of one of those standardized test questions from my school days. Which item is least like the others?
A.) Bitterness B.) Guns C.) Religion D.) Fear of The Other E.) Xenophobia F.) Protectionism. G.) None of the above.
By placing religion in a long list of horribles, Obama appears to be suggesting that religion is simply one of the many evils our nation must confront. [Although, given his stance on NAFTA during the Ohio primary, protectionism is apparently a palatable evil...]
Did Obama misspeak? Possible, but highly doubtful. I heard this simplistic worldview ad nauseum during four years at Harvard: Only dumb people or rich greedy people or religious/racist/sexist/homophobic people vote Republican……
That secularist superiority complex worked wonders for Dukakis supporters in 1988. It’s a risky mindset in 2008.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Whats that old quote you would hear as a child “God helps those who help themselves”.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I sort of like the reaction that Charles Barkley gave his grandmother and mother when they told him “only rich people vote Republican.”
“But Mom, I am rich!”
April 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Oh how the media loves to portray democrats as “out of touch” on religious matters.
One day Obama is criticized because of his religious beliefs (or at least those purportedly of the pastor of the church he attends). The next he is criticized because of his disdain for religious beliefs.
Now, Frank, come on… there is a difference between Obama and Dean (namely that Obama is active within the Christian faith). Your accusation of a “secularist superiority” mindset is misplaced. What is wrong with a Christian saying that Christians, in a time of crisis, are more likely cling to certain religious beliefs (e.g. fundamentalism)? I hear comments like that all the time, and not just from democrats. Could we not find a dozen examples of denominational leaders saying similar things?
Ask yourself, who would I assume would benefit from periods of great social and economic uncertainty: churches that offer absolutes or churches open to a wider array of meanings? To say that people who feel like they are in crisis might gravitate towards one over the other is not to malign either.
Now, as an obviously religious Obama supporter, I wish he had not made this comment. It was both untactful and divisive (personally I cannot stand it when people (especially mainliners) write off other Christians as being closed-minded, nonintellectual, etc.). I hope that was not Obama’s intent.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
“…churches that offer absolutes or churches open to a wider array of meanings?”
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this sentence fragment a little strange? I’m not maligning you, UK, because I know exactly what you mean by it, but I just wonder who it is exactly that other Christians believe it sometimes. I am asking this not to belittle anyone, but to ask honestly; if the God you believe in does not offer “absolutes” then what is it exactly that He offers? If His truth is not The Truth, then what is?
Now, this is not an argument to say that we all believe if different Gods. There is one omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe and Father of us all. I believe most, if not all, believe that. That’s not what I’m trying to say. What I’m trying to understand is the differing meanings we all give to God because of the religious upbringings we all have.
What is it that only in crisis mode to some tend to “gravitate”, as UK put it, towards a God that offers absolutes?
April 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Aren’t you overlooking the context of the singled out statement?
That context is the long term loss of jobs in small town Pennsylvania, followed by inattention to their problems by the Democratic and Republican leaders of the government over decades.
He is discussing how people respond in their thinking, acting, and/or believing to that situation: some resort to bitterness; some to the NRA program; some to their religious faith; some to hatred of people that differ from them; some to blaming immigrants; some to criticizing trade policies.
None of these approaches suggest how to make progress in dealing realisticly with the situation to change it; most do not even try to change it. Instead they divert attention away from the possibility of improving the situation. He does not suggest that these responses are “evil,” only that they are ineffective to correct the situation.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’m not Obama’s judge, but I don’t think he was far off from saying what he meant. I live in a red state, I think like a red state citizen, therefore, I will never vote for someone who sides with the blue states or blue staters, if that makes me prejudice, then I reckon I am, I’m prejudice against the ideals of the blue states and blue staters. Our country has been different since the Revolutionary War, and it will be throughout existence. Let’s quit pretending, we get enough of that from the networks.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am
You know, on the other hand rural Pennsylvania is a lot like rural Ky., coal, timber, and xenophobic sects, that are out to win against the government. This is the grudge thats been held against the government since the depression. Obama may be right on the mark, but its something that the majority of these people aren’t associated with and they would find his statements offensive. On the other hand you would have to look at what the ratio of government checks, medical, physical, disability, to the population of the area would be. It would be an interesting story that could tell both sides.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I stand corrected Perplexed, yes there are people from upstate New York and Maine that are ever bit rural as Arkansas, I’ll admit that, just as there are people in Houston and New Orleans ever bit as urban inclined as Chicago, but, overall, you can look back at the national vote, you can’t help but notice the difference. I have no problem voting for a northerner, minority, or woman, as long as they don’t take my guns and tell me how to worship.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Let’s accept that this statement was politically dumb and that it presents a message that is condescending and elitist. Let’s also acknowledge that religion in America is generally a good thing, and that it shouldn’t be lumped in together with all those sins, certainly not without some heavy duty qualifications.
Given all of the above, was Obama’s statement correct? When they lose faith in the leaders of our country and lose hope in their futures, do some Americans retreat into an unhealthy and unproductive type of religious experience?
I would say that all of those things–guns, suspicion of others, concern about immigration, restrictions on trade–have a place. But anything can be taken to an extreme that is ultimately harmful, and that includes religion. Take Obama’s comment and recast it to apply to the Middle East, where disaffected and hopeless people have turned to fundamentalist Islam with disasterous results. It fits really well, doesn’t it?
Again, is Obama being criticized for telling an impolite truth? I’m just asking…
April 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Jose, you say that Obama’s comment helps explain why disaffected and hopeless people in the Middle East have turned to fundamentalist Islam. No, it doesn’t. Osama bin Laden is from a wealthy and prominent family. He didn’t become a terrorist because he lost his job at the mill. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were well-educated and would have had no problem finding good jobs. Surveys in Europe have found that the younger generation of Muslims is more radical than their parents, even when they’re living in comfortable circumstances. Many of the European terrorists have come from affluent and well-educated backgrounds.
Most poor people don’t become revolutionaries. Typically, the leading radicals come from a very privileged background, like Obama’s friend and former Weatherman Bill Ayers, who’s the son of a former CEO of Commonwealth Edison.
I think that your last line is interesting and explains why Obama is doomed, not so much by the comment he made, but the attitude he and many of his supporters have that what he said is true and not deserving of criticism. That means that he doesn’t have a feel for how his views resonate with voters, which will lead to more problems.
Even Frank’s analysis has some of that perspective, when he refers to guns as being part of a “list of horribles.” Some people enjoy hunting. Some own guns for self-protection. But a candidate with a view that guns are a bad thing to be disparaged will lose a lot of votes, even among Democrats.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Larry, that’s some great logic! You want to disprove the idea that fundamentalism holds appeal to the disaffected because…some revolutionaries are wealthy? I think you’ll find that not all terrorists wear Armanis. And in America the best way to be a rich fundamentalist is to be in the pulpit, not the pews.
But that’s beside the point. The more significant error is that you equate hopelessness with poverty. There may be a correlation, but there are plenty of poor people who are happy and well adjusted. Likewise, wealth does not guarantee happiness and fulfillment. From what I’ve read about those middle class Muslims in England, the ones who turn to fundamentalism do so to fill a hunger in their souls, not their stomachs. Obama was not talking merely about people who were having a rough time. He described communities that were promised help that never came. These good folks can’t see a pathway out of their situation. Something like that might drive you a little nuts. Maybe you’ll start blaming someone else for your problems–foreigners, and other people who don’t look or talk like you. Maybe you’ll seek escape in the metaphysical world instead of dealing with the here and now. Or maybe you’ll seek a security blanket from the local gun shop and buy some reassurance that you are still powerful enough to kill another living creature.
Still you may be right that Obama will lose support from his awkward and incautious statement. It wasn’t a smart thing to say. A real politician knows that straight talk doesn’t win elections.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Jose, you comment that I equate hopelessness with poverty. Actually, I don’t. It’s Obama who seems to make the association when he says that “they get bitter” because “the jobs have been gone.”
With regard to blaming foreigners, as in “anti-trade sentiment”, Obama is against NAFTA and the free-trade agreement with Columbia. So it would appear that he’s pandering to the very attitude he deplores.
On another thread, we were talking about how the political parties have changed positions over the years. It used to be that liberal Democrats were in favor of free trade and Republicans were in favor of protectionist measures like tariffs. Now the Democrats are against free trade, despite the fact that you’d be hard-pressed to find a serious economist who would endorse protectionism.
You conclude with your comment about “straight talk.” On the trade issue, Obama’s main economic advisor told a Canadian government official not to take the anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously. And his main foreign policy advisor gave an interview in which she said that an immediate exit from Iraq was not going to happen. So Obama has managed the trick of talking like a typical politician while also at times offending a large group of voters.
April 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Larry, look back over Obama’s statement. It doesn’t end with “the jobs have been gone”. That’s just the beginning. After that phrase he uses the word “and” a total of SIX times to talk about what happened AFTER the jobs left. Hopelessness. It would be wrong to say that Obama was talking just about poverty.
Free trade is a funny subject because you’ll find folks from both parties on both sides. Shall I remind you that NAFTA was enacted only through the forcefulness of William Jefferson Clinton, who is reportedly a Democrat? H. Ross Perot, never one to be mistaken for a socialist, opposed it, and you will find a number of corporate CEOs who like their domestic industries protected from low cost imports.
Like you I’m generally in favor of open markets and hence I have no sympathy for the dogmatic protectionist pronouncements from the C&O roadshow. But it’s still primary season and so they have to play to the party’s core. Hillary and Barrack may not believe in what they say about trade, but doggone it they know what makes the audience happy.
Now Larry, it wouldn’t be fair to beat up one side and ignore the other. It might leave the misimpression that Democrats are dishonest and Republicans are not. It also might lead people to think that you aren’t willing to stand up for anyone or anything. So do me a favor and tell me who is your absolute favorite conservative politician. Then let’s examine his (or her) speeches and compare them to their accomplishments. I promise to be careful and thorough. Who’s it going to be? Bush? Cheney? Reagan? Gingrich?
April 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Jose, I’m not interested in putting words into Obama’s mouth, so if you prefer “hopelessness” as his theme, that’s OK with me. However, the idea that people in small towns sit around being hopeless, waiting for the government to do something for them, is condescending on Obama’s part, and really doesn’t help him.
As to NAFTA, I give Bill Clinton credit, although it’s odd that Hillary now says that she opposed what was one of his achievements. I don’t have a problem with saying something good about a Democrat if he deserves it, or something bad about a Republican if that’s deserved. For a long time, the Democrats had the better position on trade. Unfortunately, in recent years they’ve moved off their traditional platform. As for Ross Perot, he was never much of a free market guy, and I’m not sure what his mention here adds. His fortune came from EDS getting huge government contracts.
Corporations don’t advocate free markets as a matter of course, and generally are for whatever they see as being in their self-interest. Sometimes that’s free markets and sometimes protectionism. They don’t have a coherent economic philosophy.
If it seems we’re talking mostly about Obama, it’s because his comments were the subject of the original post. There are plenty of posts which beat up on Republicans. I don’t have a problem with that. I think that my comments are fairly mild, though, compared to Frank’s “channeling the ghost of Karl Marx” remark. I hate to think what your reaction might have been had I likened Obama to Marx.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Obama, most expansive of all, says bitterness, guns, religion, intolerance, xenophobia and protectionism are the drugs of choice for downscale Americans.
I personally take offense to the wording of “drugs of choice for downscale Americans”. Makes him out to be an ‘uptown American’ Was not this the gentleman who his pastor referred to as coming from a -poor single mother family-and because of his poor circumstances ‘just had to be raised by his grandparents’?
Obama may have knowledge, but lack wisdom in tact fullness
April 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I just wonder how much of the Obama statement in question would be applicable to Jeremiah Wright and his congregation.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
It cuts against my grain, but in a round about way, Obama was right. I make no bones about it, I trust politicians and big government, just about as much as I would a snake at my table. I trust God and my family, to a certain degree, my region, after that, my trust level goes way, way down, if that makes me wrong or weird, then so be it!
April 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I heard Obama on the radio this morning, explaining the “bitter” statement. His interpretation was different than how I read it. (Basically, he said that the people were finding comfort in religion and that’s just dandy.) Was he squirming his way out? Probably. But the fact that my understanding and Frank’s understanding and Obama’s explanation were all feasible and supportable by the text reinforced the notion that there was ample ambiguity in his words, and I would much rather have the speaker clarify his thoughts than have someone exegete them in a novel and disparaging way. Here we have someone who is not only an actual church member but who could also be the deepest theological thinker of any presidential nominee in more than 30 years, and his yet he is set alongside the atheist Marx and secularists.
It seems like campaign coverage has devolved into “gotcha” journalism with everyone ready to pounce on that critical slip of the tongue. Reporters don’t so much cover issues as they do popularity. We might as well be watching a sports event or a beauty contest. Candidates can’t afford to talk directly and they can’t risk being candid either. I would enjoy hearing the candidates speak off the cuff about what they really think, but it ain’t gonna happen. Sen. Obama will be much more cautious in what he says from now on, and we will lose something in the process.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
You know why I don’t trust politicians? It’s because they’re constantly aplogizing, or saying they didn’t mean it that way, when have they ever?
April 14th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
My 5th grader is studying about the civil war. I had forgotten that Abe Lincoln was one of the nine presidents that did not go to college. Even though he was a drop-out, he managed to be self taught in Laws and the rest is History. Oddly enough, he even managed to quote scripture: A house devided against itself shall not stand (Matthew 12:24)
April 14th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Matthew 12:24 ‘But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.’
April 15th, 2008 at 4:03 am
25And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
I stand corrected. Thankyou,
April 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Lincoln was also candid enough to remark, “I don’t know what a soul is, but whatever it is, it can be humbled.”
April 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
It was an honest mistake Carol, if I sounded like a smart aleck or know it all, I apologize, that wasn’t my intent. As a southerner, speaking of President Lincoln, I’m glad we are one nation under God, however, I am a state rights man to the core, that’s another reason I’m against big government, and why I favor a less centralized government, I believe Arkansas should be ruled by Arkansas people, not them demogogs from Washington.