Earthquakes and Pronouns

The numbers 4-18-06 resonate with every San Franciscan, because they represent the date of the great earthquake of 1906.  Will the numbers 4-6-08 resonate with current pundits and other poliheads as the great quake of the Barack Obama campaign?  The former resulted from the slippage of a major geological fault.  The latter, if it occurs, would result from the slippage of a pronoun 

The prevailing wisdom holds that Obama’s errors were either in characterizing small town Americans’, er, anger, as “bitterness,” or in suggesting that they “cling” to guns or religion, among other things, because they feel their concerns are dismissed by the federal government.  And, to be sure, many pundits, bloggers, and radio bobble-heads have worked themselves into rabidity over those two words.  They believe icebergs “bitter” and “cling” will cause his campaign to sink like Leonardo DeCaprio.

I disagree.  I think that Obama’s error, if any, was his use of the wrong pronoun:  “they,” instead of “we.”  In context, it made a certain amount of sense, because his audience clearly knew who the “they” they cared about were.   Whether they were there because they really cared about the plight of the poor and lower middle class, or just said they did because they wanted a seat on the Obama bandwagon, they all knew that Obama wasn’t talking about them.  He talked about people in the Midwest and rust belt and his audience nodded knowingly.  They had flown over those places.

The problem, of course, is that we live in a world of ripped fabric, and the tear separates the usses from the thems.  Nobody in their right mind wants to be in society’s thems, especially in the eyes of the government, which considers most of its citizens to be thems under normal circumstances.  Far too many people feel them-like these days and yearn for inclusion, the kind that Barack Obama seemed to promise until his use of an exclusionary pronoun suggested otherwise.

When Obama spoke about “small towns” and their inhabitants, he said “they” were bitter and etc.  There’s really nothing wrong with that, since he is not a small town dweller and neither were the members of his audience.  Unfortunately, it’s a different analysis when you include the nation, and that’s who Obama involuntarily wound up talking to, thanks to somebody surreptitiously taping his remarks and sending them to a blog.  Once they were fertilized by the bloggers the suddenly important words climbed onto the laptops of the mainstream media like commas in heat.  And Hillary and John McC piled on.

Hillary ran television commercials featuring grim-faced Pennsylvanians declaring how offended they were by the elitist Obama, and how they could trust their shot-and-a-beer compadre Hillary.  Forget the nine figure income over the last seven years, she really, really, understands us.  That’s what they (that word again!) are telling the cameras.  So far, they don’t seem to be telling the same thing to the pollsters.

Nonetheless, Barack Obama has to learn that “inclusion” requires use of the pronoun “we” as opposed to “they.”  There would be no outcry had he declared:

“So it’s not surprising then that we Americans get bitter, and many of us cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like us, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain our frustrations.”

See the difference?  Notice how “bitter” and “cling” are not bad words in this paragraph?  In fact, they strengthen the overall statement, instead of weakening it.  It’s okay if “we” are “bitter” and “cling” to things.  It’s not okay if “they” do it, because nobody wants to be a “they.”  Substitute “we” for “they,” and you have a home run instead of an error.

Unfortunately for Hillary and John McC, their strategy asks most people, especially white blue-collar people, to admit to being in the “they” class.  Instead of taking that bait, the  theys apparently have decided to give Obama a pass and don’t really feel that he was talking down to them, or disrespecting them, or dismissing them.  And, if Barack Obama is to some extent elitist, the theys recognize that he has a lot less to be elitist about than the two white multi-millionaires he is running against, either of whom can boast a net worth far in excess of his.  Whether it’s Hillary living off a speech fortune, or John McC living off a beer fortune, they both have something that Obama, whom they claim is elitist, does not have:  a fortune.

People know this.  And they – that word again – vote what they know.

©  April 16, 2008 by Mike Tully