I don’t get it. If I call you evil, that is only mildly offensive? If I call your entire state evil, that is only mildly offensive? And why is it meaningless? You don’t think the cultural/geographic divide in America is actually harmful?
Democrats and Republicans self-identify as such. That’s not an imposed, false division.
“Hard-working Americans” is political boilerplate, but its used in the same was as “middle class.” That is, it refers to some completely amorphous group that everyone thinks they belong to. If a candidate said, “West Virginia is where the real hard-working Americans live,” I would find that offensive. Though, less offensive than saying “West Virginia is where the real good Americans live.”
It’s not just celebrating small-town America. My sense is that Republican politicians are much more into demonizing whole cities and states: San Fransisco, New York, Massachusetts. I don’t see their Democratic counterparts doing this.
Even on a tactical level, impicitly attacking one half of a state as the McCain campaign did with Virginia seems pretty dubious. There are much better ways of of reaching out to your base in one region without alienating potential voters in other regions.
“Positive message”? Flyover country, while not nice, does not imply they are not part of the “real” America. It only implies some people have no desire to visit it.
What Palin is doing is divisive. It’s an “us vs. them” thing. I have noted a distinct deepening of the divide in America and I do not think it is in any way healthy for the country. There will always be disagreement to be sure but the dramatic polarization of society we have seen in the last 30 or so years is alarming.
Palin could presumably represent all Americans. Not just those she deems “real” Americans. To hear that from a would be VP is rather scary IMO.
If it’s in any way relevent, remember what a hard time Hillary Clinton was given when she spoke in a Southern accent?* So if there’s one thing worse than not being from the Real America, it’s acting like you are.
*(She said a lot more than just, “I don’t feel in no ways tard”, didn’t she?)
Seriously? You haven’t heard the Wall Street vs Main Street meme? Haven’t seen the anti-business propaganda vs The Working Man meme for years? The Dems just use have a different focus and use different examples that are also part of our collective perceptions. Being offended really is a matter of perspective and where you stand when the rhetoric is flying. Personally, like Marley23 said, I think that people aren’t generally offended (even if they are in the excluded group) because everyone knows that it IS mostly rhetoric that is appealing to emotion.
If McCain was running a good campaign he’d probably be winning.
As someone most would call “liberal” who lives in a small town, I’m really sick of these generalizations. I’m especially sick of the pernicious lie that liberals aren’t patriotic.
YMMV…I’ve done my best to explain why one is positive and one negative.
Oh, come now. The ‘us vs them’ thingy is pretty much endemic in politics, American or other. The Dems do the ‘us vs them’ thing all the time. Rich vs poor being only one example. The Republicans feel their base is in rural America so they are appealing to that supposed base. The Dems feel their base is elsewhere so they appeal elsewhere…but seriously, you are having a serious disconnect if you don’t think that they both play the ‘us vs them’ game…all the time and in many ways.
:dubious: Not that I want her as my VP, but that this is somehow just Palin…or even just the Republicans.
It is vaguely reminiscent, although from the other perspective, of the flap over people in economically depressed areas who cling to God and guns.
You can always take offense at this type of political boilerplate if you want. You tend to wind up looking foolish when your own people do the same thing, but that can be denied.
As I’ve said twice, I’m willing to stipulate that both sides do offensive things. What does that have to do with the question in the OP? Why can’t we be offended both by Obama’s comments and Palin’s? (I don’t think they are equivalent, but I think the equivalence is irrelevant.)
That is a very mild characterization of the rhetoric. If I had a dollar every time I heard “greedy bankers”, “predatory lending”, “corrupt culture of Wall Street”, or some such, I would not need my job in finance anymore.
Obama’s comment prompted outrage and demands for apologies. Palin’s comments are more of the same. Everyone’s ox is getting gored here. I am just not altogether clear why the GOP candidates can appeal to the worst that America represents without catching much heat for it.
So, you are seriously contending that the sum focus of Dem rhetoric against the wealthy is to claim they are ‘rich’? Either you are being completely disingenuous here or you haven’t been paying attention. And think about other ‘us vs them’ rhetoric on the social side of things. By and large I agree with the Dems on this…but I can still see an ‘us vs them’ mentality that makes their (in this case our) positions look good while disparaging the other side, often in very unflattering ways.
Obama couches his ‘us vs them’ in more elegant and less divisive terms…but reading behind the rhetoric it’s still there…and it’s still something that people can and do take offense from.
I think I’ll bid the thread ado at this point however. I really have nothing interesting to add to the discussion and am fairly neutral on the subject. I freely concede that offense is in the eye of the beholder, and Palins remarks can be construed by some as offensive, even if the reality is they are simply political rhetoric and nothing really shocking or new.
“Evil” is more serious, but she didn’t say anybody was evil. In another recent thread, I described this as Norman Rockwell crap, and I think I’m going to keep that up just to see if I can get other people to use it since it’s apt. Both parties use this sort of stupid rhetoric, because big city/big state people generally don’t give a crap about it, and I guess some small-town/state voters actually do like it. (Or else the people at Palin’s rallies will just cheer for anything she says, which wouldn’t be shocking.)
Because it doesn’t mean anything. What are “small town values” and all that crap? I know, vaguely, what she is saying is good about these small towns, but generally she’s letting her audience fill in the blanks by saying their towns are the best towns and their people are the best people. It’s not like New Yorkers don’t do the same thing.
Palin has pumped it up some, I’ll give you that. She’s doing exactly what she was supposed to do when she was added to the ticket by spouting this stuff. But the whole theory that the Democrats don’t love America, the “blame America first crowd” stuff, that all dates back at least 40 years. It’s never been good. I suppose in a roundabout way, though, you should be glad she’s taking this stuff to its ridiculous extreme: that rhetorical absurdity is a big reason Barack Obama’s inclusiveness and calm have struck such a chord with people.
What are you going to do about it? Most people think the best place is the place they’re from. We’re not exactly refighting the civil war here, even if Palin is mouthing some regionalistic garbage. And frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least the “pro-America” part of her remarks was just a mangling of meaning instead of a rhetorical point. Having watched her in interviews and the debate, I don’t think Sarah Palin could read a shopping list without fucking it up. She really seems to have no idea what she’s saying a lot of the time.
It’s part of the same identification continuum, though, that’s my point. Democrats are not opposed to having the U.S. remain a republic, last I checked, and Republicans are okay with a democratic system of government.
Yes, and we reject your assertion that both sides do offensive things as factually unsupported. Republicans as a matter of regularly campaign tactics call other Americans un-American and use racism as in the Southern Strategy. Both of these things divide Americans in truly offensive ways. While the Democrats may either as a matter of policy or as occasional accidents do things you may find offensive, you haven’t listed them here or offered them for comparison to what the Repubs are doing. Your statements that both sides are doing things implies that they are equally guilty. I call bullshit.
On edit:
Somebody is suggesting that Obama said something offensive. The last I recall was in the primaries when he talked about bitter gun toting religious folks. He apologized and didn’t repeat it. Republicans keep on keeping on.
See, I’m not getting this. You’re offended by the “clinging to God and guns” flap. The OP is offended by the “pro-American” flap. Yet somehow the OP looks foolish, but you are not. Well, at least to you. And who are we going to believe, you or our own lyin’ eyes?
Referring to the existence of the greedy and predatory on Wall St. at worst indirectly implies that everyone on Wall St. is greedy. And even then, it is the generalization that is false, not the premise (since there are, in fact, predatory lenders, etc.).
But again, even stipulating that both sides have offensive themes, shouldn’t the response be to condemn both themes?
I think this is much ado about nothing. Palin telling a group that, “this is the real America” I put in the same category as, for example, a nightclub comic saying, “You know, the best audiences in the country are right here in Bakersfield.”
I see where you’re coming from, Marley23, I just think this is different as a matter of degree and I think we should call out all of the bullshit regardless of how widespread or which party it comes from.
She said the real American in small towns are where we find “goodness.”
I’m going to condemn divisive rhetoric when its used by national politicians. But even if there’s nothing I can do, that doesn’t make the problem meaningless.
Both parties use this sort of stupid rhetoric, because big city/big state people generally don’t give a crap about it, and I guess some small-town/state voters actually do like it. (Or else the people at Palin’s rallies will just cheer for anything she says, which wouldn’t be shocking.)