MARCH 25, 2008
Elitism, Working Class Voters, Foreign Relations as Domestic Economics

Why is Obama's big picture only academic? Aren't Clinton's "solutions" short-term & big government?

Since when is it elitist and academic to think long-term and big picture? Aren't these pragmatic concerns? "Needs" is code for short-term government interventions. Republicans chastise "big government" while calling for more governmental control for domestic security and social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Doesn't anyone want the government out of our daily lives any more? We can't expect the government to solve immediate issues while at least half the country thinks the government's too invasive. Are Hillary Clinton and Chris Matthews' ivory towers so high from the ground that they've lost touch? They regularly laud the "everyday working man", but government "action" can't address the matrix that finds most Americans well below the average income.

If Chris Matthews had a pulse on the nation, he'd know that "latte-sippers" aren't just urban intellectuals anymore. There's an explosion of over-priced espresso carts in suburban and small town America. If more and more rural and working class Americans can afford a $3 daily cup of joe, how can they be as destitute as Clinton and Matthews portray? Most working class Americans aren't as simple-minded and reliant on government as they make them sound. Most Americans have either been entirely screwed by government mistakes, or have rooted themselves in the self-enterprising core of our forefathers. Just because working people don't seek academic careers doesn't mean they aren't smart enough to vote for more than their own immediate concerns.

Politicians and media personalities constantly talk about people with whom it takes them persistant focus groups and public polling to stay in touch with. People mired in an election, like Hillary Clinton and Chris Matthews, lean on rhetoric like the "blue collar" and "working man". They don't appeal to poorer working class Americans themselves. They appeal to the base of affluent voting Americans who are empathetic to poorer people. It's only the half of Americans who have the time to get informed on "current events" who care enough to vote. If the majority of working Americans are indeed at the bottom of the middle class, they don't have time for media reports and website ramblings on who's the best candidate to represent them. Since when did Hillary Clinton become the voice of working people? If she can tout an expansive, well-paid life and career in politics, how does she relate to working Americans?

"The economy" is a foreign relations issue, not just a short-term finance issue. Our foreign relations hinge on a mismatched perception of America's economy. We've lost an awareness of our place in the world, and America's working class is bound to corporate culture abroad. We fret over our financial security, losing jobs, and lower income. Meanwhile many long for our prosperity with the first-hand experience of our corporations expanding in poorer countries. Personal wealth is based on our houses and transportation, while these things are luxuries to much of the world. There are entire countries worse off than the gulf coast post-Katrina. The average American may be under-paid, cash-poor, and much poorer than the richest Americans. Yet considering our assets and credit, we're still far better off than the average worldwide citizen. With the U.S. Teasury itself cash-poor, our assets are corporations in the trenches of our foreign relations. A lack of direct experience widens this rift in our foreign relations, as Americans travel abroad far less than most developed country's citizens. None of this calls for any one set of "solutions". It calls for foresight, global thinking, and an awareness for how immediate problems link directly to the big picture.

Hillary's constantly talking about "all talk". Talking is a politician's job- to other politicians, the media, hopefully with constituents. It's only talking that will get things done. The only other significant part of the job are the formalities of paperwork. Talking is the action. Hillary's managerial skills and "inside" knowledge of experience don't necessarily equip her for the highest job in the country. Experience doesn't always add up to talent. When the boss of all bosses has no one else to manage above them, they have to do more than just manage the job. They have to motivate other managers with a vision and big picture.

When we're buried in holes so deep that we can't see out of them, vision and foresight are exactly what we need to find rescue. Barack Obama will do more than simply provide a big picture backbone to the Presidency, but this single character quality makes him by far the most qualified for the job.