The New Culture War, part 1

After Hillary suspended her campaign and called on her supporters to back Obama, a dear friend and active supporter of Obama, sent me an article to read and asked me to tell her what I thought about it. My friend, a long time feminist, has contributed to women’s issues for decades and her support of Obama against Hillary has been a point of contention between us. In fact, a few months ago, we decided not to discuss the nomination fight.

The article she sent is written by Michelle Goldberg and published in the New Republic. Goldberg, a young journalist and author, has done interesting research on the previous culture war, that is, the war between the religious right and the secular left.

I know that when Obama supporters send me an article to read, they don’t really care what I think about it. Rather, they are hoping that I will question my own position and be persuaded to see things their way.

Goldberg’s article is interesting to me, but probably not in the way my friend hoped. It is interesting because she represents the new culture war, the war between the so-called “progressives,” that is, the neolibs of the Democratic Party who have lost touch with and disowned the “other” side of the party, what I will call the New Deal Democrats. She writes:

Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination, but some of her most ardent female backers seem unwilling to accept it. A strange narrative has developed, abetted by Clinton and some of the mainstream feminist organizations. In it, the will of the voters was thwarted by chauvinistic party leaders in concert with a servile media, and Obama’s victory represents a repeat of George W. Bush’s in 2000. It’s a story in which Obama becomes every arrogant young man who has ever edged out a more deserving middle-aged woman, and Clinton, hanging on until the bitter end, is not a spoiler but a feminist martyr.

Contrast Hillary losing the nomination in what Goldberg calls “a strange narrative” with Obama receiving the nod from the DNC in what J. Cifre calls a “comical farce.” In this quote, Cifre represents Hillary supporters, my side in this culture war, those of us who are being disowned by the party.

This entire election has been a sham. An almost comical farce in which the Mainstream Media, along with the ideological Left fringes within the Democratic Party have decided AHEAD OF TIME, who should become President of the United States. In this manner, and with full knowledge and intent, they have decided to re-write history, dismiss entire demographics, and besmirch the reputation of countless individuals, for the sake of political power and the ‘almighty dollar’. They have courted and laid with the ugly specter of sexism and anti-White racism, insulting the very same people who have literally fed them over the years, with their vast economic and moral support.

There is much to say about this new culture war which is dividing the Democratic Party. The analysis of this division is just beginning and will make for very interesting reading as it develops and especially sometime after the November election. The blogger Anglachel is in the forefront of this analysis and calls herself a Clinton Democrat. Addressing Obama supporters, she writes:

Something else you will have to accept if you want your candidate to have a prayer of winning in the fall is that we Clinton Democrats are legitimate and loyal members of this party. You sneer at us and make insulting claims about our voting preferences, like we are racists, or are simply voting for another woman, or are just voting name recognition, or that we’re “low information” (hey, drop the euphemisms and just call us dumb hicks, OK? We’ve heard it before…) with the condescending implication that, poor dears, we just don’t know what we’re doing.

Goldberg, Cifre and Anglachel probably have a lot in common: they appear to be well-educated, white, middle-class liberals. But Goldberg’s point of view differs from that of Anglachel and Cifre. As is common with Obama supporters, Goldberg doesn’t try to tell us why we should support her candidate; she doesn’t tell us what good he has done or what good he will do. Instead, Obama’s supporters tell us what we and our candidate have done wrong. To Goldberg, Hillary supporters see themselves as victims.

This conviction, that sexism cost Clinton the nomination, is likely to be one of the more toxic legacies of this primary season. It is leaving her supporters feeling not just disappointed but victimized, many convinced that Obama’s win is illegitimate.

Goldberg defends her candidate’s nomination by demeaning Clinton supporters, a tactic that Hillary’s supporters are tired of. We read it as “kool aid” dementia, the trashing of our candidate in lieu of the ability to describe the platform and policies of Obama. Cifre, on the other hand, represents the concerned forward thinking of the Hillary supporters who worry about Obama’s lack of credentials and inexperience, but more importantly, are dismayed at the corrupting influences in the Democratic Party that won Obama the nomination. Cifre writes:

The line has been drawn in the sand, and we are definitely staring into the heart of darkness that the radical left wing of the Democratic Party has in store for all of those who do not conform. They have already proven that their main objective is to bring a new era of anti-White racism, institutionalized sexism, self inflicted ignorance, reality-show messianic pretensions, and utter submission to corporate interests.

Throughout the primary, Hillary’s supporters were viciously attacked by the Obama campaign with name calling, misogyny and sexism. The Obama blogs relied on Clinton Derangement Syndrome instead of detailing the plans of their candidate. Those of us who supported and stand by Hillary continued to ask question about Obama and his policies, but instead of receiving answers, we were called racists and/or Republicans. Somehow, to inquire about the candidate became tantamount to criticism. Hillary’s supporters love Hillary. But we don’t love Hillary just because she’s a woman or a democrat or any of the other things she is. We love her plan for Universal Health Care, her plan for jobs, her work for the elderly, for children and for veterans and current members of the military. We feel confident about her ability to handle national security issues, to work in foreign affairs and to improve the economy. These and other issues form our support for the candidate.Obama is a candidate of religious fervor. And like other religions, his support is based on an unseen and inarticulate faith. This seems to be one key difference in the new culture wars. The neolibs support Obama because he’s Obama. Hillary’s supporters back Hillary because of what she has done and what she would do. Anglachel puts it best in her address to the supporters of Obama:

[Y]our perception of and attitude towards Hillary Clinton is irrational, bordering on psychopathic. As long as you cling to it as a tenet of your faith, you will drive away people who might otherwise support your candidate. As long as so many of us think that Samantha Powers’ “gaffe” about Hillary being a monster reflects the actual attitude towards her in the Obama campaign, your candidate will lose votes. As long as people think Obama has lied about Hillary, has shown her disrespect, has deliberately piggybacked on the CDS spewed by the MSM, you will lose votes.

Obama’s nomination isn’t settled for many of us, including his militant supporters as we can see from the ongoing defensive and hateful comments they make. Some of Hillary’s supporters may be confused by her speech on Saturday, urging people to back Obama. But most of us aren’t confused. The differences between these two candidates is huge, in spite of what Hillary had to say in her speech. The fact of this new culture war is evidenced by this: Hillary is a politician with a long record of commitment and success. Gary from Confluence captures the political import of this culture war as it stands now:

Make no mistake about it, the only thing the new Democratic Party has in common with the old one is the name. It’s like the creature from the movie Alien. The party was forcibly impregnated by usurpers that grew from the inside out, eventually shedding its host and killing it in the process. Obama and his cronies now control every apparatus in the party from fundraising to determining what the new party platform will be. But we must be very clear: Obama is an illegitimate candidate. He lost to Clinton in the popular vote, thumbed his nose at large swaths of the Dem base (women, Latinos, working people, etc.), and became a poster child for everything that is wrong with affirmative action