Repost: "So, during hard times people cling to faith. That's what Obama basically said"

[krispos42]

Originally posted in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3213072

And he got reamed for it in the media and on the blogs.

Yet, this has been a basic assumption about religion for a very long time, at least as far as I can tell. Conventional widsom has it that as a population grows more educated and more materially comfortable, then tend to believe less deeply in their faith. They don't see, for example, the Hand of God in every little event in life. Fewer superstitions, more questioning of traditions, more independence of thought and action, etc.

Then Obama goes off and says it, and the religious right goes off in a huff. The same right-wing that bemoans modern society, modern technology, modern thinking, and modern education as a continuous attack on faith and the faithful, leading to the rise in crimes and murders and divorces and adultery.

The religious right is saying, essentially, that our increased education, modern techological distractions, and comfort level is resulting in a lack of faith that is the cause of current social evils.

And so then they are supporting Obama's position by their deeds. Aren't they?



This was so obvious that a mere 8 months ago, Thom Hartmann was taking about "toxic fundamentalism" being a result of POVERTY. As in, bitter, long-suffering, poor rural people!

I recently found that iTunes has all of his national shows for free, and I've been downloading them and listening to them at work. I'm halfway through August now, and that's when this came up. I heard it yesterday and was struck about how matter-of-fact it was, how undisputed it was, until "BitterGate".

He talks about how "toxic fundamentalism" was at it's most recent lows during from the 50s to the early 80s, because that what the high point of the middle class!!! And then he goes on to say that the best solution for fixing our crime rates and toxic fundamentalism is good jobs! By which, I presume, he means the resurgence of the middle class.

He said this on August 14, 2007, at the start of the 4th segment of the second hour of his show. It's archived on his home station's website and on iTunes. If you download the iTunes version (like I did), he starts talking about it at about 39:45 into the recording, and it only lasts about a minute before he takes a caller.

Listen for yourself if you don't have iTunes.

http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=hartmann_nationwide.xml

I just can't believe the hypocracy of the right wing in all of this. They've been bitching about how all the gadgets and gizmos and entertainment and distractions are keeping people from church, then when somebody says that the people that can least afford all gee-whiz digital luxuries are those most likely to be religious, they blow a gasket!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore. After all, the collapsing economy is the Democrat's fault and the Earth is only 6,000 years old, right?

I got some good initial comments, most notably from NanceGreggs and JeffR, so I figured I'd take the mods up on their offer of re-posting in GD-P.

[boston bean]

1. problem is, is that what O wants people to think he meant, but when you read the whole thing in

context, you realize he is calling people bible thumping, gun toting, bigots.

[skids]

3. Whatever. It worked for Bill in 1991.

When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

-- Bill Clinton while running for president in 1991.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. exactly. He has a habit of re-stating what he said and the media

lets him get away with it. When Bhutto died he basically accused Clinton of contributing to her death, until the people were in uproar. He rephrased and changed his statement and the media did not call him on it.

[qazplm]

7. you are right

Obama hates people who are religious.

He's not religious himself afterall.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. He's an elitist atheist Muslim with a radical Christian preacher

:crazy:

[MercutioATC]

9. If you're honest enough to view his statement in context...

...he was speaking to a group of supporters/donors who have a degree of political awareness. He was asked why he thought small-town, poor, rural America was a weak demographic for him. His response graphically (perhaps too graphically) described the "wedge issues" problem that Dems have been on the losing end of for decades.

I don't have a problem with that.


Was his phrasing to his audience appropriate? I believe so.

Does it make for a good general-purpose sound bite? Certainly not.


We're not politically naive here at DU. If you want to say that his remarks could easily be misconstrued by the politically unaware, that's fine. It's dishonest, however, to state that Obama's intent was to demean small-town voters. You know better...and if you don't, you might wish to take the time to educate yourself on how the Republicans have been using wedge issues to defeat us for decades.

[Pawel K]

30. well said.

[pinkpops]

32. and amen

[krispos42]

38. Good response

Thank you. Better than I could have done.

[pinkpops]

31. a bigot is a bigot

[krkaufman]

37. No. What Obama said was that given a person with economic and OTHER concerns ...

... if Washington and no one else is addressing their economic concerns then those people hold more tightly to what remains.

[kentuck]

2. He may as well have said...

"Religion is the opiate of the people."

Who said that??

[mcctatas]

5. I see you paid as much attention to the content of

Obama's remarks as you did to those of Karl Marx. When you read the oft quoted blurb in context, it is much more informative:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

[kentuck]

24. Sorry, I was trying to be facetious...

I should have used a symbol or something? :-)

[mcctatas]

36. oops...

my snark factor is a little high today...(plus, wingers always use quotes like that to damn anything that even has a slight whiff of socialism)....

I'm sorry :toast:

[stillcool]

6. Look at Iraq...

everyone got a long just fine until they got bombed the shit out of.

[Yossariant]

8. Ah! More excuses and explanations about W.O.R.M.*

*What Obama Really Meant.

And "God damn America!" BASICALLY just means that we are "more educated and more materially comfortable."

Got it.

I'm sure this explanation will be a real vote-getter for Obama.

:sarcasm:

[boppers]

10. Obama didn't say that (GD america).

But I'm fairly sure you knew that already.

You can also find out what Wright meant via the PBS interview.

I'm guessing you knew that too.

[Yossariant]

13. Ya can't spin your way out of "God damn America!"

The vast majority of voters don't post here.

The vast majority did not watch Moyers.

[MercutioATC]

18. Neither can you spin your way out of "Hillary is a lesbian".

It's not true, but the same people who believe the "Wright issue" is an issue at all are prone to believe such talk.

[Yossariant]

19. No spin required. ONE of them we KNOW to be true: Wright said, "God damn America."

[MercutioATC]

25. ...and a lot of uninformed voters "know" that Clinton is a lesbian.

Sorry, but you can't have this issue both ways.

If you're going to argue that uninformed voters can't deal with Obama issues intelligently, you can't argue that they'll treat Clinton any differently.

[MercutioATC]

12. Have you seen that particular quote in context? (vid link)

Assuming you're not just an anti-Obama hack and are truly concerned about this issue, I've provided a video link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw

[Yossariant]

14. Yep. And I agree with and have advocated every point that Wright mentioned, BUT

I have never said, "GOD DAMN AMERICA."

[MercutioATC]

15. Well, if you want to argue on specific wording used by an evangelical preacher...

...that's your right. I believe the context explains the "God damn America" statement. I don't find it offensive at all when put in the context of the sermon.

That aside, Obama didn't say this, his pastor did. I see it as an issue completely created by the media. Wright's statement has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's patriotism.

[Yossariant]

16. It's another electabilty issue. As I said in #13, the vast majority of voters don't post here

nor did they watch the Moyers interview.

[MercutioATC]

17. So Clinton spins a non-issue and she becomes the more "electable" candidate?

The same people that listen to stuff like this also believe Clinton is a lesbian. If Obama started questioning Clinton's sexuality, would you consider him the better candidate?

[Yossariant]

20. HUH!? How is Clinton "spinning" the issue? In any event, I was referring to the general election.

And, be honest, do ya really think the SAME people would believe that Clinton is a lesbian when they can ACTUALLY see Wright say, "GOD DAMN AMERICA.?"

[MercutioATC]

27. She's pushing the Wright thing..."You choose your church" ring a bell?

And yes, I believe uninformed voters would believe both.

I actually know a guy at work who both suspects that Clinton is a lesbian AND that Obama took his Senatorial oath of office by swearing on a Koran...and he votes

[Yossariant]

29. I notice you're changing the focus from "God damn America!" to "Obama is a Muslim."

Today's Newsweek poll --- posted all over this forum for other stats --- shows that 13% of Americans believe that Barack is a Muslim.

But I doubt they'll be voting for Clinton, either.

I expect that far more than 13% are offended by "God damn America."

I don't know how to capture individual posts, but the poster, Two Americas, made this astute observation earlier today:

"Over the last 30 years there has been a growing trend in liberal activism - a desire to be "right" at the expense of being effective, and it has reached a climax in the Obama candidacy. Those of us Democrats who have not fallen under the spell of Obama's personality can not point out his weaknesses - not because we are incorrect about them, but because, as the Obama supporters will scream at us, they should not be weaknesses: that it is wrong that they are weaknesses.

They don't really care whether or not he has weaknesses, nor do they care if we lose in November. They argue that we should be able to win, not that we can, and have accepted a toss up in the general and a possible loss to McCain, already working on their post-election "reasons" and excuses for the loss - the people are stupid, the people are racists, the Republicans cheated, America sucks, Clinton did it.

Being "right" is the consolation prize in politics.

Democrats should know that placing one individual of color into one position of power is not a litmus test of racism, or we would all be praising and celebrating the careers of Rice and Thomas.

The same demographic that rejected Gore and Kerry is now rejecting Obama, and for the same reasons and to about the same degree. They are rejecting our elitist appearing, arrogant, intellectual, professorial types. Is that shallow? Sure, but we select these guys for those superficial qualities - we relate to that style - and are in-your-face about it ("screw 'em!" Obama supporters say), so we can't really complain when the voters reject them for the same superficial reasons, can we? We don't give them any other solid or comprehensible alternative as a basis for voting."

[MercutioATC]

33. Not "changing the focus", just illustrating a point.

There is a huge uninformed electorate in this country. THAT'S our real issue.

Clinton's been feeding them by making issues of such things as "Clinggate" and "Wrightgate". Despite her efforts, pandering to ignorance, Obama is still winning. The danger of her approach is that she's feeding the same kind of mentality that believes that she's a lesbian.

Clinton hasn't missed an opportunity to spin these issues in an attempt to tear down Obama. Conversely, Obama has refused repested chances, even when directly asked, to do the same.

You reap what you sow. By playing to the fears of the uninformed, Clinton makes herself just as unelectable to the masses and more unelectable to informed voters who see her sniping for what it is.

[Yossariant]

34. AH! I see. So when Barack lies about Clinton's healthcare proposal, it's just "politics as usual"

but when Clinton doesn't rescue Barack from the preacher HE CHOSE or the words HE CHOSE, it's dirty politics.

Got it.

"He ran ads distorting Clinton's health-care plan, claiming that it would force everyone to get health insurance (true), even if they couldn't afford it (false)."

I think I see where this discussion is going.

:rofl:

[MercutioATC]

35. Actually, Clinton DID say that...it's not false.

Her exact words..." "We will have an enforcement mechanism, where the risk that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments."

[krispos42]

39. He was right either way you care to look at it

Poverty breeds devoutness and even fanaticism, therefore poor, rural America should tend to be more religious.

OR...

Poor, rural America votes on wedge issues because they don't see much difference between the DLC, corporatist Democrats we've been breeding for 20 years and the Republicans. Religion is a very big one because many, many pastors deliver fire-and-brimstone speeches about how immoral America is regarding gay marriage and abortion and the seperation of church and state (casting Jesus out of our schools, etc.).

[calimary]

21. One might point out to somebody who takes umbrage with that -

Um... clinging to your faith in bad times - er - uh - and that's a BAD thing? You're REALLY getting bent outta shape about that????

[Yossariant]

23. I'm pretty sure that those who are offended think that Barack just "doesn't get it."

They say their religion is just as important to them in good times as in bad times.

[krispos42]

40. Yeah, they say that...

doesn't make it true. Countries with people that are fat and materially happy tend to not go to church so much.

"They", presumebly poor rural America, don't get that point because poor, rural America is a vast area of the country.

[DemGa]

22. The more I read what Obama really said (WORS)

The more offensive I find his words. He's saying these people are not in control of their lives - even their own thoughts. But are driven by external forces that Obama can see, but they cannot. It's condescending as hell regardless of Obama's clarification statements and his supporters view of what Obama really meant (WORM).

"So it’s not surprising then that 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."

[Yossariant]

26. WHOA! I hadn't seen the quote. I agree. Condescending as hell.

[krispos42]

42. And people aren't in control of their own lives, and they know that!

They know, in small towns, that much depends on things like local employment. Will that new business come into town? Is that factory expanding? Will our town get the all-state basketball finals this year? Do farmers need extra help for the harvest? How are wheat prices doing this year?

And they know that the hours they work per week depends on conditions way outside the town borders.

I worked in a factory in rural South Dakota for 4 years. The hours per week that I worked varied from 32 to 60. And it depended ENTIRELY on national conditions for the products that we made. Nothing we made was used in town.

So, yeah, we know there are external forces at work. And we know what policies affect those forces, and how those may trickle on down to us.

[ginchinchili]

28. No, that's not what he said; that's just how he's trying to spin it.

You're ignoring the part about them clinging to their fear of anyone different from them, i.e., they're racists. It was a totally stupid and insulting thing to say.

[krispos42]

41. Anti-immigration sentiment is entirely valid

Illegal immigrants are depressing wages in areas all over the country.

Yeah, the locals in a particular rural town probably wouldn't pee themselve with glee if a bunch of legal, totally above-board Latinos moved in anyway, but seeing illegal immigrants moving in, not integrating, not speaking or learning English, not paying taxes, and depressing the local prevailing wages will definately upset people in short order.


What is not understood is that part of the problem is NAFTA, part of it is lack of federal regulation and enforcement of employment laws, and part of it is that the Republicans can't resist the siren call of super-cheap, benefit-free labor. Republicans, playing to their white roots and base, thump the podium in public about stopping illegal immigration (terrah! terrah! terrah!), then go out the next morning and pick up a squad of don't-ask-don't-tell, cash-only people at a street corner to lay bricks or frame a house for $4 an hour.