We hold this truth to be self-evident.

And the truth we hold to be self-evident is that poor economic conditions are the perfect breeding ground for xenophobic or radicalized political ideologies.

It doesn't take a genius to do a simple google search or read any book about the causes of a wide variety of radical phenomena and see that poor economic conditions and lack of job prospects have been contributing factors to the rise of everything from the excesses of the French Revolution, to Nazism, to Islamism.

A lack of opportunity is what allows unscrupulous demagogues to gain power through the use of the scapegoating of the "other" about whom we are told that, should we only at last be able to rid ourselves of them, all our problems would go away.  Doesn't matter what group it is: Catholics, Jews, blacks, gays--anyone.

This is a phenomenon we recognize.  But it's apparently only something we can say about other nations, other societies, who lived at a time and place different from our own.  Everybody except ourselves.  And if any politician dares to state that we are no exception from the notion that economic depression often creates a frustration that often leads to xenophobic radicalism, that politician is pilloried.

More below.

It would be less sad to see McCain and Hillary teaming up (yet again) to trash Obama's openness about the consequences of the failure to finally deal with the economic concerns of our rust belt area if Obama's diagnosis weren't so painfully accurate.  I find it very a propos (I guess my use of French in this context proves that I, like Obama, am a fauning elitist) that the town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania has been in the news recently for its draconian laws designed to drive out Hispanics from the town.

But even barring anecdotes of, say, towns in the rust belt targeting Hispanics for elimination from their society--as if that will solve the ills of a generation of corporate outsourcing--the idea of people voting against their own economic interest on behalf of those who promote the scapegoating of others or religious radicalization is well-documented.  Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas is a perfect illustration.  But from my standpoint, the even more alarming part about the critiques to Obama's discursus on the bitterness of the American electorate is that according to some campaigns, it is elitist and out of touch to even say that Americans are frustrated.

Now that's something I really don't get.  Quoth Hillary:

As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

Now that's a little hard to understand.  It's hard to understand because national polls seem to suggest that Americans are, in fact, worried and pessimistic about the state of the economy, their jobs and their finances.  But according to Hillary Clinton, all these middle-class workers are wearing smiles on their faces and rolling up their shirt sleeves,  ready to go back to work at the factory that no longer exists because the "free trade" bill she helped promote took it away from them.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a President who understands the social problems that economic depression can cause in communities and does his best to analyze and prevent it, rather than a President who thinks that everyone is ready to engage in a few happy-go-lucky singalongs because of the unbridled optimism of the American spirit, or something to that effect.  Especially when one of these two has the gall to lie to the voters who were the most negatively affected by the job-crushing policies she helped promote.

And the only reason I'm even starting with Hillary here is because she's a (mostly) loyal Democrat who would do far more good than harm if elected--make no mistake about that--and is therefore redeemable in my eyes.  What I'm saying is, don't even get me started on John McCain.  You want to talk about elitist and out of touch?  How about his position on Iraq when he's not paying the price?  What about his flip-flopping on his support for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, which will give assistance to not one single struggling factory worker in middle class America?  What about John McCain's support of extremist pastors who preach their eliminationist rhetoric with a free pass from the press?

It pains me to see that Obama can be roundly criticized for doing the unthinkable--namely, acknowledging the fact that poor economic conditions just might create xenophobia and a focus on "single issues"--while his opponents get a free pass for their hypocritical critiques of his remarks, even after his eloquent and cogent rebuttal of them.

Obama wants to solve America's problems based on an unflinching intellectual--and politically unsafe--dialogue about what causes them.  His critics, meanwhile, try to tear him down to keep up the false veneer that is politics as usual in this country.  Here's yet another example.

Good luck, Senator.