Dear Jeff;

There is always a tipping point where clear headed analysis and effective strategy run smack into unprincipled cynicsim and unforgivable deviousness.

I'm not saying your piece has gone that far. To some extent Orwell's lament calls for no different response than taking a course in public speaking. You learn how to communicate effectively so as not to unnecessarily alienate your audience.

But historically, there are times when it is better to lose, even if it means sacrificing important aspects of your dream landscape, in order to avoid becoming the enemy you oppose.

Whatever one's preference is in this race, it is apparent that Senator Obama's campaign has been constructed around a phrase he often uses (and I brutally paraphrase): It is not just a question of winning but whether we deserve to win.

Where do you draw the line with the Orwelian logic? How do you work for justice if you don't already look like, act like, and think like the people you are trying to help? If you don't already fit in, should you be ridiculed?

The line in my view (while identified at a different point by different interpreters) is that place where the artifice you present is more than trivial and begins to threaten the very principles you stand for.

For example, Obama could unobjectionably, in my view, dress differently, practice his bowling game, study up on local habits, learn to come off more like a regular guy, or even modify his words so as not to offend.

But this election has given us a peek into the next step that he has not taken and cannot without losing his soul.

The folks who Obama is most unlike this year (the same folks he is losing) are described by you and other media pundits variously as "working class," "white," and "older."

There may be lots of ways to apeal to these demongraphic subsets which are honorable -- and he should do it. But the line he won't cross, which Hillary Clinton has no scruples about at all -- is to speak the language of social suspicion, exclusion (now of gays as much as blacks or women), or tolerate the ugliness of personal attacks.

Older voters in particular, especially in certain regions, socio-economic groups, and racial backgrounds, are not just bowlers and beer drinkers and hunters. They also include among their ranks folks with leftover prejudices and other generational tendencies that someone like Barack Obama will never and should never pander to.

As you know personally, Lyndon Johnson sacrificed decades of Democratic Party dominance in the South by his courageous civil rights stands. Thank God for that whiskey drinking, truck driving, cowboy hat wearing elitist.

As you know personally, Lyndon Johnson sacrificed decades of Democratic Party dominance in the South by his courageous civil rights stands.

Sure and blowin the hell outta commie gooks didn't help.

Everyone should have the exact same individual rights in a rational free world, but Obama supports every redistributive policy possible. Special rights and affirmative racial privileges is racism. Liberty or absolute freedom is keeping what you earn. Slavery, like taxation, is the appropriation of other’s work.

While you contend that white people “include among their ranks folks with leftover prejudices” because they don’t support Obama, likewise, Obama’s San Francisco remarks, like his wife’s college dissertation and his mentor’s philosophies, are quite racist. Justifying racism with claims of victimization is the tactic all racist groups use, so don’t do it either.

Very clearly “Government” and “rural” are code words meaning “white,” just like “urban,” “intercity” and “minority” translate as “black.” So there is no doubt that many – if not the majority- of Obama followers are racist bigots or economy destroying socialists. Why should “white-males” vote for Obama is his words and actions prove absolute contempt – if not hatred – is directed at this socio-ethnic group?

At best we can renounce racism (from both the left and right) and denounce economy and humanity destroying Marxism, and accept the factual superiority of the free-market thereby voting for the best free-trading, low-taxing, low-spending candidate in the race. And he is McCain

thoughtful, winning post. I especially like your reference to the line Obama won't cross. That's very helpful. Thanks.

Two points:

1) John, great post. One of the most well reasoned I've read in a while.

2) Ralph, you apparently have no idea what you are talking about - "Special rights and affirmative racial privileges is racism?" Obama's the only one openly against racial affirmative action.

Someone in another thread quoted Lincoln (and I too brutally paraphrase)that I feel is appropriate: "Never have I heard so many words used to make such a small point."

OeOeO;

Ironically, the Vietnam War, as much as I opposed it, had no effect whatsoever in shifting the political map from Democrat to Republican. The South continued to support the war until the very end, but whites left the party in droves after George Wallace lost for the final time. It was civil rights which Lyndon Johnson knew would have this effect and did according to historians.

Ralph 7;

You wrote (and I brutally redact):

Obama supports every redistributive policy possible... While you contend that white people “include among their ranks folks with leftover prejudices” because they don’t support Obama, likewise, Obama’s San Francisco remarks [were racist] Very clearly “Government” and “rural” are code words meaning “white,” just like “urban,” “intercity” and “minority” translate as “black.” So there is no doubt that many – if not the majority- of Obama followers are racist bigots or economy destroying socialists. Why should “white-males” vote for Obama if his words and actions prove absolute contempt – if not hatred – is directed at this socio-ethnic group?

1. Obama does not support redistribution of wealth except through a reform of tax burdens by making them more progressive. All progressive tax systems, indeed all tax systems, redistribute wealth and are supported by every major candidate of either party, including Ron Paul.
2. Re-read my post please, before attributing a stupid statement to me that "white people 'include among their ranks folks with leftover prejudices' because they don’t support Obama." I said no such thing. My comment makes the unremarkable point that studies show that anti-black racism is on the decline in the U.S. and that what remains is concentrated mostly among white, older, and rural voters. You may be offended by this fact, but it is not just an opinion. The point of the post was to opose a strategy of appealing to this latent prejudice through the use of code language.
3. I have never heard a single person say that Obama's San Francisco comments were "racist" until now. Both blacks and whites have been effected by campaigns that appeal to social values issues, such as gay rights. How "government" is a code word for "whites" would need some explaining. I see no correlation.
4. You say that many of Obama's supporters are racist bigots and then go on to say that "white males" apparently en masse should vote against Obama. Premise unsupported and nonsensical. Conclusion bigoted.

I am white, male, and older myself. Perhaps our difference lies in our autobiographies. I don't know yours. But mine includes years living in the south and working for civil rights. It is beyond me how anyone who witnessed the degrading, hateful society blacks endured until quite recently, can equate a desire for non-discrimination laws or mild affirmative action programs with the kind of racial dominance and superior attitudes that still linger.

we for two elections anyway. then they elected that knuckleheaded peanut brain.

'Obama does not support redistribution of wealth except through a reform of tax burdens by making them more progressive.'

no shit sherlock.

Irvingchang;

You wrote (in your complete rebuttal);

"No shit sherlock".

Well, if you were one of my students and demonstrated such a well thought out argument (on either side of a proposal) you would be flunked. However, you would have the wonderful consolation of knowing you would never become "elitist." Just unable to find work.

Is there no reason that even the slowest among us cannot at least make an attempt at thoughtful debate. Must every institution, including the instituion most crucially in need of thoughtful debate, i.e., political/civic discourse, be damned forever to the trash heap by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

Dumbing down may seem attractive tothose stuck in the dumb category, but it is does not require those who read, ponder, and analayse to pretend they are intellectually challenged too.

Irving, there are pllenty of blogs devoted to Brittany Spears and American Idol which would welcome your commentary. If you chose to pollute these pages, take some effort say something thoughtful. Please.

please spare me the lecture. osambo want to tax the freaking rich? you could blow me over with a feather right now!! there is not a problem in the world that a liberal cannot solve by taking more of the money i earned to give it to the lazy and stupid and call social equity.

i pity your friigen students. you probably flunk them every time they call you on your bullshit. that's why you're a professor. you can't function in the competitive market. you have probably never ever worked in the private sector and yet you are a tax expert.

failry typical liberal ivory tower socialist weenie who can blow me and rush limbaugh.

To an extent, I don't really see what's wrong with being an elitist. After all, we elected Joe Average (or at least someone who pretended to be such) to the presidency, and... well, look around. Bleah.

The thing to remember here is the same thing I had to figure out in high school and college as an honor student: you have to speak the other person's language. I'd throw out five-dollar words and cryptic cultural allusions, and most people back home didn't understand what I was saying. Similarly, people are prone to missing the wonky details the liberals of our era obsess over, even as those bullet points and arcane regulations hold the keys to their own success.

It's a matter of giving people the big picture, showing them how they're affected by this, breaking things down to a basic level with as little distortion as possible so they know what you mean.

Finally, we have to accept that there are some people you can't win over no matter how hard you try, people who proudly wallow in their ignorance and filth. But you don't want these people in your camp anyway. You can probably win without them. McCain can have them--not like they'll vote for a black person anyway.

You have successfully placed older people in a big and not very attractive vat that is most certainly removed from the rest of humanity. There is no room in your self-admiring missive for the vast majority of us/them. I would think that the most descriptive word for many elders after this bruising campaign includes none of your perjoratives but is marked instead by the simple word "speechless". Not "toothless", as many on these blogs blather in knee-slapping glee and not "senile", as others mindlessly opine. Just speechless. You contend that Obama will not and should not pander to us. And of course he will not. He will not, you seem to imply, address us at all.