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.

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.

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.

“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

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.