They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals.

This is just another example of the timid, intimidated mindset that has a lock hold on the Democratic Party.

Majorities don't initiate bold proposals.  The bold proposal has to come FIRST.  Then you attract a majority to the proposal.  If you have to build consensus first, form a committee to make a proposal, you will NEVER, EVER come up with a bold proposal. Bold proposals come from LEADERS not from majorities.

"The Rightwing can fuck up government and destroy confidence in their leadership, yet win the broader political debate if this leads to general distrust of all government solutions." That's been a critical issue, at least since Nixon's handiwork in Vietnam and Watergate bred the climate that ultimately benefitted his party.

It would suggest that our most critical work in the immediate future is to create accountability, so that it's not some abstraction called government that failed us in New Orleans or Baghdad, but the party in power.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Leaders do not lead. People follow them.

Here's an issue for Obama: health care. It's a complex issue. It needs a good plan and a brilliant communicator to explain the plan. Does Obama have the courage to boldly lead this country to universal coverage and make us the last industrialized nation to have a right to health care?

I agree that the candidate who can convince the voters that they have a workable universal coverage health plan will grab the momentum. Hillary obviously has a handicap here being known for a failed plan, but if she or anyone else can convince us they have the right plan, it's Victory in '08

He did call for universal health care. From the Times:

"What New Hampshire saw was a first-term senator from Illinois who offered a strong condemnation of the way politics have been conducted in Washington and who positioned himself as someone who could strongly appeal to the more liberal Democrats who tend to dominate primaries. In two speeches and a news conference, Mr. Obama called for universal health care — the issue with which Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, was once closely identified — a battle on global warming and a timed redeployment of troops from Iraq."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/us/11obama.html?ex=1166850000&en=389241126151c2a3&ei=5070

For some reason, it seems you do not value consensus for the role that it has when it comes to pushing through any idea let alone a BOLD one.

I value consensus but it's not the same thing as vision, boldness or leadership. 

There is a consensus among us that the personal computer is useful.  The personal computer was not invented because there was a consensus that it would be useful.  The consensus followed the vision and the leadership.   Someone has said that no significant social change comes from a politician.  Maybe not.  But a politician, if he is truly to be a bold and memorable leader, at least has to play a role equivalent to Bill Gates, i.e., he has to take someone else's idea and make it happen.  He can't just sit back and wait for the mob to beat down the door clamoring for the product.

I'm not sure exactly where you were going with these statements. Political leaders can take ideas from anywhere--it doesn't have to spring forth new from their political brain. You might want to consider a few examples: (1) Lincoln and the Emanicipation Proclamation; (2) LBJ and the civil rights legislation; (3) FDR and Social Security (along with a host of other policies).

I submit that we've had a lot of turmoil in this country with these political leaders who enacted policies that drove social change. I will agree that elements in our society were demanding these changes...so the ideas did not spring forth unaided from the political leader's head.

The genius of FDR was the ability to explain policy changes to regular folks with his fireside chats. That is what we need today.

Yep.

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.

Re: The American public was in the mood to 'bring it on' after 9/11 and they bought the rhetoric about WMD. So yes they wanted to invade Iraq. In fact, it is a classic example of taking the masses where they want to go.

The masses did not want to go to Iraq. They wanted to go after bin Laden and Al Qaida. Hence the Afghanistan business went through without controversy. And that would been sufficient under a more honest, less Machiavellian leader.
It took the Bush administration 18 months of lies and misdirection to gull the people into accepting the Iraq invasion. There was absolutely no great public clamor for that war which Bush simply got out in front of.

Remember-- the Emancipation Proclamation only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion.  And calling for those freed slaves to rise up against their masters during the war had strong Northern support by that point. 

By the time the Civil War started, rejection of slavery had strong majority support in the nation.  The only question was the pace of its abolition on largely strategic grounds, not on principle.  Once the Civil War started, abolition became inevitable and the 13th Amendment was ratified readily by the Northern states by the end of the war.

They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals.

Substance is a hard thing, indeed: you can write a book "The Audacity of Hope" but you can also write "The Audacity of Doubt" as well.

In my opinion, the ruling elite only has to keep the electorate in check so the top 1% can lead the way.

John Edwards' wife was frank enough to note that college costs, health care costs, etc..., were linked to the performance of the stock market, and who, without wealth, would want taxes or college borrowing or health care costs to track a roaring stock market?

The politician who finds a way to decouple these economic links will surely get a noble prize in economics.

Although, I think the NY Times, for example, had an article about colleges who raised their prices and, essentially, created a sliding scale tuition model based on endowments, gifts, etc... so maybe it is possible for one customer to subsidize another.

But Bush's politics seem powerful, I think, because, just like the Jesuits who grabbed power by taking over institutions, the Republicans seem successful at doing that too. They seem good at pushing out those who don't support their cause and replacing them. It's a coup from the top down, not the bottom up and it's a tough cancer to fight.

One of the highlights of this powershift was how many Republicans became "secretary of state" and controlled election counts, etc...

That's called, "asymetric warfar" as Rumsfeld was fond of saying.

I'm 100% with Newman here.

The same assymetry goes for "leadership" as well. It is lots easier for a "leader" to appeal to baser instincts that overcome the better instincts of the public. In this sense we have the incredible example of Hitler. You can all think of less extreme examples.

Hard to find an example of a leader (not a follower) who appeals to our better instincts, except in extreme situations such as the Civil War or the Depression.

I am definitely not arguing that we need to push for a lesser agenda, but that we need to find the approach that appeals to a supermajority for the broad agenda we want.  We want to strive for universal health care, higher wages, equal rights and corporate accountability, but we need to build 60%+ majorities for that agenda.

 So I am interested in Obama's attempt to reach out to larger numbers of folks, especially his outreach to religious voters who support much of the progressive agenda but have been alienated from progressive politics in the last couple of decades. 

I am for progressives pushing a very ambitious agenda, but we need to push it not on narrow tactics but broadminded strategies to achieve broad public support.

Mr. Newman implies that America's cynicism is misguided and even created out of thin air by Karl Rove. I couldn't more strongly disagree and prove my point briefly.

1. Social Security Trust Fund -- you know the one we've been forced to pay in to all our lives, only to have our politicians raid it any time they need extra cash for their latest bridge to nowhere. This is the biggest extortion scandal in American history and not a single politician has gone to jail nor will they. The Progressive movement's silence on this issue is baffling really.

2. Medicare -- going broke and riddled with corruption and waste.

3. $ 6 Trillion National Debt -- at this point it's half our annual GDP and counting.

4. Iraq and WMD -- enough said!!!

No, Mr. Newman, my cynicism is well grounded in facts and a smiling Obama won't be changing my mind. What is most amazing to me is that not only are progressives silent on the gross mismanagement by both political parties, they want to give the government even more responsibility to run national health care. One has to ask what's in the coffee you guys are drinking.

John Edwards has done more to drive up medical costs in North Carolina than any single individual. He won a court case based on junk science (which has since been de-bunked) which drove up the costs of delivering a child in the state almost overnight.
He's like Al Gore -- his home state folks know the real Mr. Edwards. They won't be voting for him. The rest of the nation should listen to those who know him best and not be fooled by the slick presentation.

Leaders are those who can persuade masses of people to take the path that, while not the easiest or most obvious, is the best in the long run.  As was pointed out by marcf, it is much easier to be a "leader" when you watch carefully to see what people want to do, then run out in front of them and encourage them to do it.  A real leader does know what people want to do, but is also aware of what people are willing to do if given enough good reasons to do so.  We haven't had one of those leaders for many years.

An obvious characteristic of a good leader is his (or her) ability to speak persuasively to a variety of audiences.  You cannot possibly lead if you cannot command the language.  Obama has a great command of English, and the intangible called charisma.  When he speaks, people listen.

Now, he needs to find a very few issues, no more than three, I would say, that offer the possibility that a large majority of us can be persuaded to follow the best path on.  Universal health care seems obvious as one of those issues.  The arguments in favor of single payer, not for profit health care as a right for all of us, are very persuasive, and only need a leader such as Obama may be to prod us to support it.

Another such issue, but a much harder one to lead on, is to re-instil in us the belief that good government is worth paying for.  No progressive agenda will succeed if the tax take is too low to pay the bills.  We need to be persuaded that there truly are many things that government can do better than individuals and corporations, and that those things are well worth paying more in taxes to have done by the government.

If we wait for consensus before acting on any of these issues, we will never act.  Consensus is heading the wrong direction right now, and withoug good leadership it will not reverse course. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I value consensus but it's not the same thing as vision, boldness or leadership. There is a consensus among us that the personal computer is useful

Bluebell, you are on a tangent. This is not about computers. Why not address the political examples I raised. I gave you two excellent ones, both of which underscore the need for consensus in order to initiate a bold proposal. One failed and the other succeeded. Hillary failed with Health Care and Bush succeeded with his GWOT.  Bush created consensus and Hillary did not.

How about you provide an example of political leadership that exemplifies your perspective?

I have given two examples which support my view and my point. The  leadership perspective, I've espoused,  is demonstrated by their respective political  failure and success  So far, you have not given any examples to demostrate your point, can you?

The masses did not want to go to Iraq. They wanted to go after bin Laden and Al Qaida.

Nor did I say the masses wanted to go to Iraq. I said they were in the mood to fight and payback those folks. All Bush did was give them a target.  The American public was led to believe that Al-Q was connected with Iraq and they never to this day have protested the 'reasons for the war'. We are still there and in fact, Bush is going to ESCALATE the war.

It took the Bush administration 18 months of lies and misdirection to gull the people into accepting the Iraq invasion. There was absolutely no great public clamor for that war which Bush simply got out in front of.

Oh, yes there was a clamor for war. Bush stood on that rubble in NYC and said we would get them and the warmongers in society ATE it UP. Bush did not have to gull people, at all. Cheney, Condi, Powell and all those neo-cons on Fox news sold this war to the public based on WMD. They even kept on wanting more blood after there were no WMD. They claimed to have brought down a brutal dictator and lauded America for bringing democracy. This was all about consensus. Without, consensus there would not have ever been any war.

It was a BOLD idea and it would have NEVER got off the ground without consensus. Which is precisely what Obama says. Even a moron like Bush knew this. Hillary and Feingold DON'T though for all their smarts and courage of conviction, respectively...no one FOLLOWS them.

I'll stick with substance over soundbites. I'd think we'd all had enough of that by now.

You were also a staunch supporter of Ned Lamont, who was totally lacking in substance as well as experience..

If we wait for consensus before acting on any of these issues, we will never act.  Consensus is heading the wrong direction right now, and withoug good leadership it will not reverse course. 

Hoppy, I pretty much agree with your entire post. I do not think we should wait for consensus either. I think consensus must be built in order to achieve the majorities needed to push through any bold proposals. Only someone who can articulate the 'common good' of acting on common ideals, goals and beliefs can bring about that consensus. That is what leadership is about.

Leadership is not divisiveness and polarization which is nothing but a shrewd tactic for those who want power without regard to common good and only to further their own causes. Which is what we have had for the past 8 years.

Senator Obama is very very serious about finding some way of reforming health care and getting everyone covered. He did that here in Illinois where we now have kids under 18 covered regardless.
The dems have been demonized so effectively through the past 12 years that people no longer know what's a lie and what is real about dems. We do need to build up to get things thru that are progressive.
Plus we have a shaky economy and a huge debt. It will not be easy. We need someone who can get all sorts of people behind him.
On Washington Journal last week, a couple of republicans called when they were talking about Obama to say, regardless of thier party, they liked what he had to say and were planning on supporting him. This is the kind of cross over appeal we need in a candidate in order to build support.

Gore won a total of 8 elections in TN (4 for the house, 2 for senate, 2 as Clinton's running mate) before he lost in 2000 by 3%.

Clinton/Gore won TN in 1992 by 5%, in 1996 by 2.4%.

Just before that, in 1990, Gore won all the counties in TN for his senate reelection.

What does that tell us?

Sorry, Whitey, but that just doesn't make it logically. The first chicken hatched from an egg laid by a not-quite chicken. You couldn't say that the first chicken hatched from a not-quite egg.

No offense but...Yes, it is logical. Whether it is biblical or evolutionary there is no evidence of eggs existing before chickens. The creature comes first, whether it is animal or human.  What is not logical is for the egg to appear first, it certainly is untrue biblically, and not logical evolutionary wise.

In short, the  quote 'not-quite' unquote animal  lays the 'egg' regardless of  what comes out the egg..the animal was here first to lay the quote 'not-quite' unquote egg.

Very very logical.

Which came first  Miles the musician or the notes he composed? Were the notes composed when Miles blew them? Or did Miles have to compose them to make them transcendent?

Those notes are analogous to DNA (egg) they require the right combination in order for the animal (composition) to exist. That combination (musical composition) does not occur without the master first (Miles) ..or the animal coming first.

Just so you know, I am at my desk, listening to Bitches Brew and snickering about this dialogue as I think the topic is worthy of it's own thread just to marvel at the cognitive imagination among the TPMcafe crew on this issue..

"This assymmetry of left versus right strategies is a key problem, since the Rightwing can fuck up government and destroy confidence in their leadership-- yet win the broader political debate if this leads to general distrust of all government solutions."

Ironically, Karl Rove is leading an insurgency in domestic politics, while neocon foreign policy is disrupted by an insurgency in Iraq.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well.

Gore shot himself in the foot with his enviornmental stance. The guy owned a zinc mine (and I believe still may) here in TN that was a source of a lot of pollution -- running around the world talking about the enviornment. I could be wrong, but Gore's loss may be the first time a Presidential candidate has lost his home state. The rest of the nation can thank us for keeping him out of the White House.

Both TN and NC have been trending GOP for years now, which is why Edwards essentially abandoned his Senate re-election campaign.

I'll give you FDR. Read his 4 Freedoms speech. He lead a people shocked by the Depression into social change, he prepared a nation for war, and he had the guts to ask them to raise their taxes and sacrifice to pay for both. The US had FDR in the 1930's. Germany had Hitler. The first was a leader, the second was a tyrant. There is a difference.

Two years ago, the conventional wisdom spouting from every conventional Democrat and every conventional MSM pundit was that the Democratic Party would never ever be so stupid as to nominate anyone who was not a white southern NASCAR born again Baptist regular guy.

Now, we arguing about the pros and cons of the woman from New York or the black guy from Illinois with exotic foreign roots.

And none of it, whether it's the theory that we need the NASCAR Dad, the political machine of Hillary, or the novelty of Obama has anything to say about where the Democratic Party wants to lead this country or whether it has even a single leader in it who can articulate where he wants to lead it.

You might be right about Obama and it isn't his fault that his political party is so clueless. It's not like we've got a philosophy or an agenda that he can pick up and run with and articulate. So I am indeed asking him for a superhuman, once in 50 years or so capacity to generate that kind of agenda and lead it.

But I am saying, you don't get that 60% majority without it. You get a sustained super-majority when you've got both the agenda and the leadership. We've seen that with Reagan and with FDR.

I don't know when we'll see it again. I'm not expecting in 2008.

There's a few paragraphs in Obama's book that apply. I don't remember the legislation but Rove was approached with ideas to slightly change the bill in a few ways so the Senators favoring it would go from 51 to 60--and the changes were ones proposed by Democrats. Rove said that he only needed 51 votes and no changes would be made. They weren't made so we now have the GOP law.

Obama saw that as a serious problem and so do I. I want a president and Congressional leaders who are OPEN to negotiation in a bipartisan way. I don't see this as being weak-kneed with "radicals" and I certainly don't see it as a long-range plan for Democrats to treat the GOP as they were treated.

I read the polls. Voters are solidifying their opinions that were expressed in November votes. The GOP is diving downward while the Democratic Party is going more positive. That's a good trend and we don't need to reverse it.

Give John Edwards a look. Someone who loves to work and loves to win a case and not plea bargain. He backs his speeches up with solid proposals. I can see him be like FDR who came into office to fix a broken country that was on the verge of tearing down the capitalist system.
FDR tried some bold new ideas with a team of experts including Keynes. FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights" has not yet been implemented but we have the chance. I believe that leadership is not throwing ideas up there and seeing what sticks. Leadership is taking an idea and selling it. I think of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther for that matter, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln and yes, Reagan....In Suroweicki's "Wisdom of Crowds" he talks about many,diverse, and independent people making the best decisions between choices. But the entrepreneur/leader comes up with an original idea and then must have the ability to communicate his vision and his excitement about it. I look forward to seeing how Obama tackles a tough issue, sinks his teeth in and fights for it. Not just find that mushy middle that doesn't rock the corporate boat, but doesn't really get much done either. Most people can haggle. Few people can show us a brighter way.
"Loyalty to your country always; Loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain

The bottom line is that we can't even talk about national health insurance r now until we get SS and Medicare on solid financial footing that is not based on accounting gimmicks.

But, of course, when we put money in the bank, it is good banking practice for the bank to maintain the ability to return it to us if we ask for it. And, this practice is what the Bush tax cuts destroyed. There is no longer any hope that federal revenues can catch up to federal spending. That's kinda like a bank that has invested far too much of its customers deposits, and has no hope of being able to cash in those investments fast enough to pay the customers looming demands for their money. That is a mis-management problem - what we should be calling a "Republican problem". The probllem will be taken care of as soon as we can get enough Democrats into Congress, with a Democratic president. Then the obscenely wealthy will once again be required to pay taxes at historic rates. And, the "social security problem" will then cease to exist.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Ah, You prefer Lieberman? Oh my.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I live in Connecticut, and Ned had more substance in his little finger than Lieberman has left in his extended family.

Lots of National RW pundits made the case for Lieberman, and his ads misled a lot of voters here. The kind of noise from "fair weather" progressives was pretty deafening. Ned only had grassroots, not a National War Chest and the whole of the right wing spin machine working for him.

Ned didn't need to lie about his position. He was against the war and progressive. Two things Lieberman isn't (anymore, if he ever was.)

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com