If all the hunters of Pennsylvania threw a party, some say, they would form the fourth-largest army in the world. (The third-largest standing army, incidentally, is Obama Nation. “Change” … or else.)
Yet, in an off-the-record speech in San Francisco, Barack Obama blamed the Clinton and Bush administrations for forsaking small town Pennsylvanians, who in turn “get bitter” and then “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.”
The uproar over his comment is somewhat surprising. The belief that red-state Americans regularly vote against their self-interests — valuing guns and God over entitlement programs and redistribution of wealth — is widespread on left.
Agree with the sentiment, or not, Obama was expressing an idea many Democrats ascribe to. The real problem for Obama, who would like to be all things to all people, was articulating it out loud. But was he wrong?
As Americans, we give far too much credit to government for the health of the economy — bust or boom. Still, you’d be hard-pressed to blame either the Clinton or Bush administrations (and curse you for making me defend either) for the Keystone State’s troubles.
In 1983, for instance, Pennsylvania’s unemployment was at 12.9 percent. It has since fallen to a low of 4 percent in 2000. It has climbed to around 4.8 percent today, around the national average.
Even if we concede there is rampant bitterness in Middle America, why hasn’t it been matched by a precipitous rise in gun ownership? Or have God-fearing, gun-toting Pennsylvanians been clinging to the First and Second Amendments through thick and thin?
Speaking of clinging, wasn’t it Obama who clung to his detestable preacher for 20 years? For faith’s sake? Obama explained that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a manifestation of anger beyond the comprehension of outsiders. Obama Nation says it’s racist to mention this 20-year relationship.
Fair enough. But would it not also be fair to say that Obama has no special insight into the bond smaller American communities have with God? Or is some faith-based clinging more defensible than others?
Having spent limited time in semi-rural Pennsylvania, I can only make an anecdotal claim: never have I observed any widespread “antipathy” by Pennsylvanians toward people who weren’t “like them.” Or, more precisely, far less antipathy one might find on progressive blogs aimed at God-fearing philistines.
Sure, there is plenty of anti-illegal immigrant sentiment — admittedly, this bleeds into anti-immigrant sentiment far too often. And Obama was right about “anti-trade sentiment.” As a leading anti-trade candidate, in a party which has turned its back on 50 years of prosperous international trade, Obama would know.
Campaigning in industrial states, Obama regularly condemns NAFTA, playing on fears and appeasing the protectionist wing of his party (though an Obama adviser assured the Canadian government it’s only campaign talk).
First, Obama claimed he was being attacked for “something that everybody knows is true” and later conceded the words were poorly chosen. Many conservative commentators — and Hillary Clinton — allege that the “cling speech” unmasks a real-life lefty elitist, the true Obama.
Not so. Obama was speaking to crowd of San Franciscans in local dialect. The same way Clinton loves guns in rural Pennsylvania but not New York City or John McCain sounds like Barry Goldwater in Arizona and Lyndon Johnson in Washington.
Obama is a conventional candidate running for the presidency. And “unity” is only a catchword in a country as diverse — ideologically, racially, religiously, etc. — as the U.S.
Thank God. Or don’t thank God, as the case may be.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
