Obama and the Lessons of Stereotyping in Politics (Updated)

Introduction: There is going to be a bit of irony in what I am about to write because in sales, my profession for ten plus years, stereotyping is not only welcome but frankly many times mandatory. In fact, in sales one could say that stereotyping is actually marketing. That said, Barack Obama is not in sales but in politics and he committed a cardinal sin and his sin is universal and hopefully all take lesson from his mistake. I also stand by my initial analysis that he was far too desperate to try and paint previous policies as leaving folks behind and thus got himself into trouble.

As the furor over Obama's statements insulting small town folks in Pennsylvania and beyond simmer and take on a life of their own, I have had a chance to think about them and I have come to the conclusion that Obama's biggest fault with regards to the comments is that he stereotyped. We all remember these unfortunate comments by Bill Bennett

do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So, these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Now, Bennett made the same critical error that Obama did, he stereotyped. The reality is that there is no typical small town person, just like there is no typical white person (another unfortunate Obama stereotype). Trying to paint millions of people with one braod brush and putting all of them into one box is dicey at best and it will explode in your face at worst. When someone stereotypes against a religion or race we call them bigots. Stereotyping is almost always wrong, and that is why these comments have blown up on Obama.

The problem for Obama is that he, like many politicians on both sides, stereotypes all the time. He gets away with it usually for many reasons. For the most part, his stereotypes are positives. Politicians often refer to Americans as hard working, patriotic, self reliant and many other positive qualities. Of course, these stereotypes are no less ridiculous than the ones he made about small town Americans. There are nearly half a BILLION Americans, and thus they aren't anything. Americans aren't monolothic. Many Americans are hard working and others aren't. When politicians stereotype in a positive manner people simply don't notice.

The other reason is that for the most part he stereotypes against demonized groups. Here is what he recently said about mortgage lenders...

The top mortgage lenders spend $185 million lobbying Congress, and we wonder whyWashington looked the other way when they were tricking families into buying homes they couldn't afford.

Now, even if this was many times true, and it wasn't, painting all mortgage lenders with this brush is patently ridiculous. Obama has made similar generalizations about CEO's and insurance companies among many groups that are easy to demonize. The reason that those statements weren't noticed is because they were targeting groups most people don't like. They were of course no less incendiary or wrong. Not all CEO's are money hungry vultures who's only goal in life is to maximize their own profits while making everyone else poor. Not all insurance companies actively try to make sure folks don't get the health care they need in order to line their own pockets. These stereotypes and generalizations are almost always made as part of his active part of his war of classes, and so were these latest comments. He got away with it often because he chose the right targets, and finally, he got caught going after the wrong ones. Still, had society viewed banks favorably, his comments against banks would have blown up just as much. The irony is that his attackers stereotype no less by portraying all San Franciscans as elitist, and they get away with it because most folks hate San Franciscans.

The problem is that his statement isn't merely without merit, but frankly one that can't be judged. It isn't as though Obama is responding to a poll that came to his conclusions because folks in small towns would likely slam the phone in the pollsters face if they were asked such a question. (yes I realize I too am stereotyping but this is a stereotype of human nature. When you are insulted you are likely to slam a phone) It can't even be measured. What is a small town, 5 thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand? His statements are not only insulting but patently ridiculous on their face. Not all small towns are poor. Not all poor people are bitter. Not all bitter people cling to religion and guns. Not all people that are religious do it because they are poor. The statement has absolutely no frame of reference. Are there folks in small towns that fit his little box...likely. There are hundreds of millions of folks in small towns and likely there are some that fit every small box. That is why stereotyping is so wrong. just because a portion of a group, small or large, fits the stereotype, doesn't mean the stereotype has any merit. We can make stereotypes about yuppies in big cities, Southerners, Northerners, and foreigners, and they would all be without any legitimate merit.

This brings me to some of his defenders. There are now many that claim that while the comments were ill adivsed that for the most part they are true. This is patently nonsensical. The comments were bigoted. Here is why. Let's pretend two politicians were asked these two questions and gave these two responses. How would the country react, and how fast would these pols be out of politics...

Question: Senator, lately polling has shown that you aren't doing as well with Jews as we expected do you know why this is?

Response: As you know, my policies are inclusive, and I am trying to take care of everyone including the downtrodden. The previous policies benefitted the few at the expense of the many. Jews, as we all know, are part of the class that has benefitted while the rest have been left behind, and thus they see me and my policies as the enemy.

...and

Question: Senator, your party hasn't done well with African Americans, do you know why this is?

Response: As you know our party preaches smaller government and self reliance, and you know that African Americans are overwhelmingly lazy and thus they would much rather have a party that gives them government hand outs...

If you think these comments are way over the top and not comparable to Obama's, I can find you many racists that will say that they are entirely true. These comments, like Obama's, stereotype in the worst sort of a way.

The lesson that I hope everyone takes away from Obama's unfortunate comments is that stereotyping is almost always wrong and it will almost always get you in trouble. It is time we all stopped looking at people as types and found individuals.

Update:

Barack Obama tried to diffuse the situation however I don't believe he still understand what it is he did that is so wrong.

Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at Ball State University. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."

With all due respect Senator, the comments aren't true. These comments can't even be measured. They are true in your mind only. You have a stereotypical view of what is typical of small town America, and that Senator, is the problem. You can't see people as individuals and rather you place them into a box and that is the problem.