Clinging (II)
It’s saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of “the other.” ~Sullivan
As historical analysis, this is basically a lot of bunk. Religious rigidity has not lessened in oil-rich countries, but has instead found a steady stream of funding; the rise of Hindu fundamentalism has coincided with the new wave of prosperity in India over the last 20 years; Sullivan’s own bogey of so-called “Christianism,” by which he means a very broadly defined Christian fundamentalism, has flourished in an era of vast economic expansion. These may be reactions against economic dislocation or rapid change to some extent, but if we want to make such sweeping generalisations (usually a bad idea) it is the prosperous, relatively stable periods that are the moments when great religious ferment and severe reformism appear. The argument that Obama is making, to the extent that it is an argument, is one that possesses the same fallacy as the thesis that modernising societies would gradually become thoroughly secularised and religion would waste away, and it is based in a crude materialist assumption, whether or not you want to call it Marxist, that economic conditions determine culture and religion, when, if anything, the reverse is the case. The idea that people turn to a more severe and strict religious code in bad economic times is one of the oddest claims I have ever seen, and I’m not sure why anyone has ever believed it. There are certainly enough counterexamples to make it a very poor example of a recurring pattern. Essentially all of the Crusades and the Fourth Lateran Council came during a time of tremendous economic growth in Latin Christendom. More examples could easily be found. Religious reform movements often arise, to the extent that there are direct relations between economic and religious history of this kind, in response to excesses of material prosperity and the moral corruption that reformers see as the result of excessive wealth. Savonarola, who does not deserve the bad reputation he has acquired among moderns, was a preacher of moral reform in a wealthy city-state; his calls for repentance did not draw audiences because they were poor and hungry, but because they felt pangs of conscience for being too rich and gluttonous. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that this part of the same prophetic tradition that Wright’s defenders invoked as justification for his statements seems to have escaped Obama’s notice.
But Obama wasn’t engaged in historical analysis. He was giving a fundraising speech to people in San Francisco and talking about voters in Pennsylvania today, and he was giving an explanation that referred to religion generally and combined it with a host of things that coastal and urban elites (of both parties) find distressing. This wasn’t an observation that in times of crisis people turn to the certainties and traditions that nourish them spiritually, but a claim that guns, religion, prejudice (the “antipathy to people who are not like them”) and what Obama’s audience would readily call xenophobia are all the expressions of economic anxiety and frustration, things to which people “cling” for lack of any other remedy. The most hilarious part of the original statement is the bit where he includes “anti-trade sentiment” as one of the forms of “clinging,” when anti-trade sentiment is the most obvious and understandable reaction to economic woes in the Rust Belt. People do not “cling” to anti-trade sentiment; anti-trade sentiment by itself does nothing. They think that current trade policy has been bad for industries in their state. Had he thrown in “isolationism” to the list of things to which people “cling,” he would have had both the Bush trifecta of supposedly dangerous ”isms” and the core of the Thomas Frank analysis.
Excellent analysis.
I think you miss Obama’s point (he made it easy to miss though). After reading and rereading his original remarks - including what he said before and after the “clinging” part - I take him to be putting forward a theory as to why certain people vote the way they do. He’s talking about what people do *in the voting booth*, not what they do in order to give meaning to their lives.
There’s a big difference between a crude materialism that purports to explain all cultural phenomena and a theory of voting patterns applied to a particular time and place in American history. Obama is aware of the changes in core Democratic voter behavior in the course of recent decades. After a long period of successful labor movement politics, the Democratic base has splintered, in part due to the GOP’s successful use of cultural issues. A few decades ago, Democratic voters in rust belt states could trust Democrats to deliver economic policies intended to protect labor. As that has changed, other issues have become decisive in the voting booth. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out, albeit in a slightly artless way. Furthermore, there are certain voters who would cease voting on religious, cultural, trade, or immigration issues if they could be convinced that economic conditions would be improved by the election of a Democratic president with a solid plan for economic growth. Obama presumably believes that those voters will vote strategically for him if he can succeed in making his case. There’s nothing wrong with pointing that out, either.
Obama insists over and over again that it is possible to change our political culture by changing our political discourse. He insists that he believes this, and I happen to take him at this word. It would be quite odd if he believed this and was also at the same time a materialist. It appears to me that you have run with a rather problematic interpretation of his words.
“It’s saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of “the other.” ~Sullivan
“As historical analysis, this is basically a lot of bunk. ”
… … …
“The really creative, church-forming, religious movements are the work of the lower strata. Here only can one find that union of unimpaired imagination, simplicity in emotional life, unreflective character of thought, spontaneity of energy and vehement force of need, out of which an unconditioned faith in a divine revelation, the naivete of complete surrender, and the intransigence of certitude can arise.” –Ernst Troeltsch
You, along with most conservatives reacting to Obama’s remarks, are falsely interpreting them as saying that religion is the product of economic distress and bitterness towards politicians. That’s clearly not what he said. Nor is he saying that religious fundamentalism is the product of economic distress and bitterness. He is merely saying that when people are economically distressed and bitter towards their leaders, they cling to all kinds of things they hope will make them feel more secure - such as religion, guns, cultural issues, etc. He’s not saying that what they cling to is false, only that they become defensive and suspicious. They turn to safety and security, and so they are less likely to turn to someone, like Obama, who seems different, an outsider, a black man, etc. What he’s saying is that they get manipulated by people, like Clinton or Bush, who pose as safe and secure alternatives to the more “outside the box” leaders like Obama.
In other words, it’s not that Obama is saying that the things such people turn to, such as resentment towards immigrants or anti-trade policy, are wrong in themselves, only that policitians use these things to manipulate voters into supporting people and programs that don’t help them at all, which is why their economic prospects continue to decline. Twisting his words into some overall theory of religion or trade is simply nonsense.
Actually, what I am mostly arguing in this post is that Andrew Sullivan’s interpretation of what Obama said advances a false view of the relationship between economic distress and religion/religious fundamentalism. This is a view he ascribes to Obama, and it seemed plausible enough that Obama held it. If Obama meant something else, Sullivan certainly missed it as well, but my main purpose in this post is to criticise what *Sullivan* said in defense of Obama.
But there is a real problem with the use of the word “cling,” and there is a bigger problem with the juxtaposition of religion and racism as two things to which these people “cling.” We’re supposed to think that he disapproves of racism and xenophobia, but approves of these voters’ religion and gun ownership. Maybe that’s true, but that isn’t what he said. He lumped them all together in a list of things that his audience in S.F. would find disturbing. In fact, I think Obama thought he was defending these voters to a Californian audience that wouldn’t understand them. When he says that he sympathises with them, I think he is being honest. He also happens to be condescending at the same time.
Twisting his words into an explanation of voting habits requires making a lot more assumptions about what Obama meant. If he was talking about voting and policy, he should have said as much, but that isn’t what he said.
“Twisting his words into some overall theory of religion or trade is simply nonsense.”
Fair enough, but it was Sullivan who embarked on this line of interpretation as a way of justifying Obama’s remarks. Once again, it seems that Obama needs to be protected from his prominent supporters.
Daniel,
I understand better, thanks to your reminder, that you were criticizing Sullivan’s take on Obama, but still accepting his take as accurately reflecting Obama’s own intentions. I don’t accept Sullivan’s take, which is too weighted towards his own critique of religious fundamentalism in America. I don’t see any evidence that Obama was criticizing or trying to explain religious fundamentalism. He was clearly trying to explain why he’s having trouble making inroads with Pennsylvania Democrats, and trying to explain to San Francisco Democrats what’s different out there in Pennsylvania.
Is his answer simplistic? Yes, of course. You’re right that he’s trying to be sympathetic, but I don’t find it condescending. He’s talking about people who had been going through hard times for a very long time, who have even been bypassed during good economic times during the last 25 years, and how this makes people vulnerable to demagoguery on issues like religion, guns, trade, immigration, etc. It’s not condescending to say that people cling to things that make them feel secure, and that their fears can be exloited by politicians. The whole point of Obama’s campaign is that he is trying to end the whole political strategy of playing on people’s fears to win elections, and pushing strategically one those emotional security issues that people cling to in order to get their votes. That’s the point he was trying to make to donors in San Francisco, to appeal to them to help him bring that kind of politics to an end. It’s not an appeal to help bring religion, guns, trade, and immigration issues to an end by suggesting that the only people who care about these things are bitter rust-belt natives who just don’t know any better.
[…] Clinging (II) 6 conradg, Daniel Larison, conradg […] […]