Kuhn diagnoses the problem as primarily socio-economic:
Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.
Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.
Despite the commendable effort by Kuhn, he seems intent on dancing around the impact race has on Obama's agenda, attributing it instead to the simple shortcomings of liberal dogma. Yet even Kuhn admits that, during FDR's socialist expansions of the state, "[white] men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them." The inverse, of course, is that white men feel that Obama is not doing right by them.
All Kuhn needs to do to see the racial undercurrent of this conflict is ask, as Ravilla did, "Cui bono?" Who benefited from the bank bailout? Lenders who were given state incentives to loan to minorities who couldn't make good on the deals. Who benefits from Obamacare? The overwhelmingly black and Hispanic portion of the uninsured population, and the illegals who Obama now hopes to make citizens.
So, while Kuhn deserves credit for recognizing the racial undertones of Obama's declining numbers without descending into anti-white paranoia, he still misses the racial nature of Obama's agenda, and in doing so he still misses the point.







