Obama’s words – ill-chosen?
On the Defensive, Obama Calls His Words Ill-Chosen.
But were they? No, I’m not saying I agree that guns and religiosity are closely correlated to economic disfranchisement (they’re not). But I don’t mind Obama saying what he said. If a large group feels economically disfranchised, that’s a big problem, and one that threatens the continued existence of free-marketism. Do I recommend income re-distribution? No, I don’t (and neither has Obama). But how about subsidized education for displaced workers… or any worker, for that matter? That gives the masses no excuse to be non-competitive and gives people incentives to stay academically competitive.
Staying ahead of the curve in the globalized world we live in aint’ a bad idea, in my view. Economic incentives for continual education facilitate competitiveness and ward off anti-globalizers. And I think Obama understands that, populist election-year rhetoric aside.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:49 am
There’s too separate controversies here, and the Obama camp hasn’t been open about it. There is the question over the word “bitter,” which really doesn’t matter. Then there is the question that working class people suffer from false consciousness as it comes to guns, trade, immigration, etc. That’s more worrisome, and it appears he actually believes that.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Dan: I guess my bottom line here is that, despite what some in the media (esp right-wing) seem to think, Obama seems like a moderate, thoughtful kind of guy. I think his words were a way to “relate” to those who feel economically disfranchise or left behind. Not saying the words were well-chosen, but I don’t think they were extreme.
In fact, the consequences of a more severe economic disfranchisement can be very serious and can explain how many bad leaders came to power. I think Obama understands that, but such concepts are difficult to explain in sound bites.