RE: Obama's Appalachian Problem (Part II)

I'll start by pointing out that his Appalachian problem may be fading.

I actually live in Appalachia and find many pieces about the politics of the area, including this one linked to in a post on this blog, to be too simplistic.

While there are some truths to this column, the caricaturizations and sneering tone toward "academicians" makes it a less constructive critique than it could be.

I have two general problems with the article. First, it either fails or refuses to understand the impact of problematic factors influencing voters in Appalachia. Second, rather than objectively analyzing the race, it is a partisan attempt to mischaracterize Obama in the hopes that he will suffer the same fate as past "academicians".

Those who deny that race, religion, and misinformation are significant factors are kidding themselves.

Just yesterday, I was in a restaurant in Appalachia and overheard a discussion of politics. One man bemoaned the possibility of Obama being elected president, worrying that the Muslim would change our religion and raise his taxes. We all know that the Muslim charge is false, and I have posted about taxes here and here. His interlocutor feebly pointed out that Obama claims he is not a Muslim. The first man expressed that he doesn't necessarily believe Obama and would rather not take a chance on him.

The belief that Obama is a Muslim, hates white people, is unpatriotic, is a Manchurian candidate, or will raise taxes on the middle-class is disturbingly widespread in Appalachia. I live here. I know.

Sure, the Colonel Obama described in the end of the article would perform better than Barack Obama. It is a fact that Appalachian voters will vote in a majority for a black man who they believe shares their values and doesn't dwell on racial divisions. But Colonel Obama wouldn't stand a chance against a caucasian named Colonel White.

Also, you can't separate white voters' failure to identify with Obama from his ethnicity. The scurrilous rumors about Obama are easier to believe because of Obama's race and exotic name. Even if Obama shares Appalachian voters' core values (I think he does), he starts at a deficit because he doesn't share their physical characteristics.

Barone's comparisons of results are apples to oranges and thus do not convince me that my impressions from my own experiences are incorrect. He's comparing primaries to general elections and comparing elections that took place decades apart.

The warriors vs. priests theme is both troubling and annoying. It is troubling because I think it is unhelpful in dealing with real problems. It is annoying because the author has chosen to perpetuate this theme and attempt to tar Obama as another "priest".

The "Jacksonian warriors" didn't win elections just because they loved war, as the neocons at the Weekly Standard would have you believe. They won in large part thanks to long-lasting resentment against Republicans stemming from the Civil War and Reconstruction. They also advocated domestic and foreign policies that I don't see the Weekly Standard supporting very often. Why is the lesson from Wilson warfare and not the League of Nations? Why is the lesson from FDR warfare and not the New Deal? Why is the lesson from Truman nuclear weapons and not the UN, NATO, the Fair Deal, and defense spending cuts to pay for his domestic policies?

Wilson successfully campaigned for reelection in 1916 on his avoidance of the war in Europe.

FDR congratulated Neville Chamberlain on his "appeasement" of Hitler at Munich. He didn't declare war on Germany until they declared war on us four days after Pearl Harbor.

Truman rapidly demobilized and weakened the military after WWII.

A modern president successful in Appalachia, George W. Bush, is no warrior. He took great effort to avoid military service and campaigned on a humble foreign policy in 2000. In 2004, he beat an actual warrior in Kerry, who personally hunted down and killed people in Southeast Asia. It's easy to be a tough guy from the Oval Office. Where was Bush when his country needed him to take a real risk?

The truth is that a great leader knows when to wage war and when to find peace. Reagan was accused of appeasement from the right, including Gingrich, for his willingness to deal with the Soviet Union.

For his part, Obama is not weak on national security.

Obama: "I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership — the people who murdered 3,000 Americans — have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

Let's remember that when Obama said we should be willing to strike al Qaeda in Pakistan if Musharraf refuses to act, McCain criticized him. How does that fit into the warrior vs. priest theme?

If a warrior, in response to a monstrous attack that killed thousands of civilians, lets the perpetrators live and diverts us to a war against a country that had no involvement whatsoever, while a priest pursues the evil murderers wherever they may try to hide, I'll take the priest.

There is a cultural divide, primarily among Baby Boomers, that was created in the 1960's. A large part of that divide is based on the left's association with an anti-war movement that spiraled out of control. The subsequent perception of weakness from Carter and strength from Reagan on national security cemented the foreign policy gap between the parties. This cultural divide and foreign policy gap accounts for some of Obama's problem in Appalachia. Unfortunately, this divide that was created a decade before I was born does not seem relevant to me or current issues. My hope is that Obama can get beyond that. The Weekly Standard is desperately hoping he will fail.