Why are country folk, who are from my personal experience by and large the salt of the earth, often depicted in popular culture as embittered losers who do not understand that their interests lie with the benighted liberal Democrat party? The label used is Redneck. It is the only politically correct racial epitaph, whitey turns red when working in the sun. Even when not used expressly you can still here it echoing of the walls of the room. Barak Hussein Obama, when he addressed his elite fellow travelers in San Fransisco, said:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Pennsylvania has been described as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama up the middle. For those living under a rock the past 50 years Alabama is synonymous with Redneck-Land. Obama’s view of Rednecks is not unusual. Barak is not the first liberal to not get it. It is a common blindness. For instance Thomas Franks in “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” stumbles in the same way:

In its implacable bitterness Kansas holds up a mirror to the rest of us. If this is the place where America goes looking for its national soul, then this is where America finds that its soul, after stewing in the primal resentment of the backlash, has gone all sour and wrong. If Kansas is the concentrated essence of normality, then here is where we can see the deranged gradually become normal, where we look into that handsome, confident, reassuring, all-American face . . . and realize that we are staring into the eyes of a lunatic.

That Rednecks do not vote for the left is, in the minds of Franks and Obama, prima facie evidence that they are ignorant, bitter, and crazy. I can only wonder if there is any projection going on.

Because Rednecks do not buy into the rank class warfare espoused by Bolshevik wannabe’s, they are obviously in need of a graft of hope and change. Hoping for what change is the key question. Please don’t look at the good Reverend behind the curtain, please overlook the bank roll provided by Soros as seed money for over a half dozen liberal media megaphones such as MoveOn.org and mediamatters.org. Please overlook the links of both Cinton and Obama to Alinsky, and Ayers as well.

For years now, America has been shrugging off socialist elitists who seek to save us from ourselves. Before the socialists, we had paranoid populists such as William Jennings Byran. In Franks, one can hear the echoes of Bryan. To both, the people are gullible and need guidance from their benighted betters. To refuse this guidance is to earn the label Redneck.

In 200 years, we have built the highest standard of living in the world, fielded the strongest military, and pioneered much of the technological progress of the past century. Most Americans do not want to be changed, they want to be left alone. To see the raging success of countries that elected populists to lead them, go look at Argentina. To see an example of a successful socialistic economy, look at Greece. This is the Utopia we are to hope for? This is the change we are being led to?

John Edwards is yet another example of the a liberal who is desperately trying to sound like one of the prairie populists in the mold of Byran. Edwards also does not get it:

We have much work to do, because the truth is we still live in a country where there are two different Americas: one for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don’t have to worry; and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Edward’s vision of the U.S. reminds me more of something out of Dickens than de Tocqueville. The part that gives one great pause is the fact that Edwards grew up modest and now owns a 28K square foot home with all the whistles and bells. If he can do this, why can’t his country cousins? Edwards is yet another example of the American dream in action. He proves that it does not matter where you start, the sky is the limit. Edwards is the classic American success story; and his very success disproves his own statements. Did Edwards, in his own eyes, cheat somehow? Why is the deck stacked in his eyes when he is a beneficiary of the game?

Sometimes, some distance is required in order to gain some perspective. Take the French President Sarkozy. His view of this country differs from from the three wealthy Democrats listed above:

From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights, and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: “Come, and everything will be given to you.” She said: “Come, and the only limits to what you’ll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.” America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Returning to Franks, Obama, and Edwards, one looks for the hopeful vision of the country that is typified by Sarkozy’s description of life here, and, tellingly, one fails to find it.

Obama wants to change us, for we need to be changed fundamentally. In Obama’s eyes, this change is for the better to be sure, but what does better look like to Obama? He sees success in our future collectivization. Hope for Obama is dependent upon the level of change he is able to bring about. This change is needed because Obama sees typical white people, a.k.a. Rednecks, as hardened racists, their faith a superstition, and their desire to be independent of collective thinking a clinging to false power symbolized by a gun.

Franks sees our political landscape as stark, and the common people as dupes of the Republican party. Franks explicitly states that the economic prerogative of the middle class is to vote Democrat and that this prerogative trumps any cultural issues. Really? Why is that so? Our economy came about because of these very bourgeois attitudes towards work, family and personal property, coupled with a healthy distrust of those who govern. The modern Democrat party is the antithesis of these principles — the very principles that brought about the wealth we as a nation enjoy.

To put a point on it, why is it when wealthy liberals vote Democrat, ignoring of their economic prerogative is not viewed in a suspicious light, but is instead held up as enlightened? Why are they not typified as bitter angry socialists who value meddling in the affairs of others over their own economic well being? Are they not dupes of the left wing Utopia machine? These poor old bitter hippies did not see their flower power take over the country, so now they are willing to ignore their economic prerogative just to have their way. What happened to not trusting the government?

It is the modern left that is bitter. BDS has been raging for close to eight years now. They lost the argument in the 20th century. With the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economy and the triumph of the conservative economic policies put into place by Reagan and Thatcher, they have had their highway to Utopia closed for repairs. Such people invariably seek a scape goat for their troubles. In this case, the scape goat is the electorate they want to lead. This is is why Democrat leftists support changing the face of this electorate, and deride the current electorate as bitter and superstitious. This is why they hope for change.