Obama Delivers on the Ground
While I am still personally undecided in my own vote between Edwards and Obama, I do have to say last night's caucus showed that Obama could deliver on the promise of his organizing skills, turning his online and student forces into an effective army on caucus night that Dean notably failed to do four years ago.
As I wrote in June in Obama as Movement Builder?
Obama is working to engage a lot of folks in movement building who are not the "low hanging" fruit of available activists, including the netroots.
The payoff from those organizational skills were obvious last night but the deeper significance could be a realignment of a whole range of voters into the progressive column, not just in November but over time.
I'm still deciding if this is just an organizational insurgency or a true political mobilization that could reshape American politics, but there is real promise there.
My worry is whether he is really mobilizing them on the content of his substantive message or just the vagueness of "change" in a time when people are angry and distressed. I'm not annoyed like some at his "post-partisanship" message, since the best way to build a big partisan majority is to assert this kind of non-partisan inclusiveness. No, the concern is that the ideas and policies filling his "change" message actually connect with people beyond momentary distress to shape a real analysis of what's wrong with the nation.
At some level, Obama seems to say that the problem is merely the politicians. Their failures have gotten in the way of solving the problems of the American people. He'll nod to the problem of corporate lobbyists but he usually won't straight out identify the actors OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT, namely corporate power, as a signficant target for change.
Ultimately, Edwards is more willing to try to build a message of where the source of problems are. Politicians may not be acting to solve them, but Obama needs to talk more about that source of the problem, not just his vaguer blame of politicians failure to act, to convince me he can turn his organizational prowess into deeper ideological realignment of the populace.
Comments (104)
Yes, the devil is always in the details. Are Obama's voters just swayed by his star qualities or are they concerned about fundamental issues? And is Obama concerned about issues or image? At this point, it seems like image. And I am bothered by what strikes me as an empty rhetoric of inclusiveness, though I concede this may be the best way to bring in the typically issue-ignorant independent voter.
January 4, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a fair bit of writing about this a couple years ago somewhere around the blogs, but one of the reasons why Obama and Edwards have a greater appeal to me than Clinton is because they move beyond the "bucket of issues" approach to campaigning. Dickering over health care plans at this point is just silly. It's like worrying about whether the meat is well marbled and has an attractive color before feeding it into the sausage machine (in this case, Congress). Half the platform points presented will get completely reworked once in Washington before they ever become law or policy.
Unlike a lot of folks online, it seems, I don't see Obama's inclusiveness as empty. I hear something closer to, "progressivism is the right way to go, and you should believe this whether you voted for Reagan or not." I may be daydreaming, but the phrase "Obama Republicans," as the long sought-after answer to "Reagan Democrats," sounds awfully nice.
January 4, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that a lot of those who are mobilized in Obama's campaign may be somewhat naive, and they won't expect or demand specific policy positions (and gravy train appointments) the way that Clinton's and Edward's people might. But many of them are getting into politics for the first time, and that's important!
(Not to mention the people who got involved with Howard Dean in 2004 and are now more fully engaged with one of the three main candidates this year.)
Think about the number of people in progressive politics now who got involved in the McCarthy and McGovern campaigns. Many of them were probably just as naive back then (1968 and '72). And this time, perhaps, they will have come in with a winning team. (What difference that'll make, I'm not so sure.)
And by the way, I think people are missing an important point -- although 41% of the newcomers in Iowa supported Obama, most of the other 59% (a HUGE number compared to the total number who caucused in 2004) came in support for Edwards and Clinton, and that has got to count for something too! The debate between the three of them did it, and not just any one of them.
Our truths (how palpable and evident soever) are rendered as incredible...
January 4, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
IF Obama wins the nomination the question of realignment may depend on whether his coattails can carry the Senate to a filibuster-proof majority. Then a Democratic Congress may help push him to forge a new, dare I say, liberal realignment. The Reagan coalition is collapsing and Obama won't have to bargain as much with them as his current rhetoric implies.
Well excuse me for taking a trip on the Hope Train.
January 4, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me the re-alignment comes from picking up new states: The Great Plains and the Inter-Mountain states.
In "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Berkley Political Science Professor Robert Paxton, also lays out the anatomy of Swedish Liberalism: and alignment of Rural and Urban Workers interests. Obama, and any Democrat for that matter, can bring in Urban America, the key is to pull in some rural interests. That would seem to mean the Great Plains and Inter-Mountain states and to a lesser extent, near southern states. That new alignment can be cemented along the issue of energy, where as the rural states create it and the urban states consume it.
Obama is the greatest natural politician of our time. Maybe even all time. How else does an African American with a Muslim middle name win the Iowa caucus. But a realignment in my mind means putting that talent to use to trigger the realignment, such as I've described here. We'll see what happens.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
January 4, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do think there is great potential, right now, for a big political realignment. I'm not sanguine about the prospects because it's not clear to me that any of the Democratic leadership is ready to capitalize on the relative collapse of conservatism as a governing philosophy, but the potential is there.
What keeps waking me up at night is the series of news articles I've seen on the fragmentation of evangelical political power. This is potentially important, I think, for two reasons. First, if evangelical voters stood as less of a bloc, the Republicans would have a harder time forging a winning electoral strategy. But second, my sense is that there is a genuine interest, among many conservative Christians, to get beyond abortion and gay rights and attend to issues like poverty and racism. They may not come to these issues with the analysis that I'd like, but serious attention to what on ourside would be called social justice concerns could really shake political alignments around in an interesting way.
I'd like to see politicians and progressives capitalize on this. Forging alliances across progressive and social conservative interests might feel cynical and kind of odious at first, probably to both sides, but over time, I think that this could turn into alliances between progressives and other (semi-)progressives.
January 4, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A friend is married to a Korean-American woman that is a committed evangelical. (He's not--typically cynical musician.) He mentioned the Huckabee win to his wife and learned she had never heard of him.
January 4, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't remember, and I am constitutionally lazy about looking things up when I can just ask, but isn't Huckabee the one who proposed a big tax increase on the wealthy in Arkansas?
I'm hoping he stays in the game for awhile, because in the usually two-dimensional world of American politics, he's an interesting bit of origami. Also because he can't possibly win the general election....
January 4, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of doubt the tax thing, since his current proposal is from the Fair Tax folks, and consists of replacing graduated income tax with flat sales tax. (The poor get a rebate.)
I'm going to start calling him Wannabee Wackabee.
January 4, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I'll have to do my own research.
According to the anti-tax folks looking to take him down, "by the end of his second term as Arkansas governor he had raised sales taxes 37 percent, fuel taxes 16 percent, and cigarettes taxes 103 percent."
What I can't recall is whether he is the one who proposed sweeping reform to make state taxes more progressive, and did so on the basis of his Christian beliefs.
The animosity between him and Grover Norquist strikes me as genuine, even though he's supposedly gone over to the Club for Greed side on the issue. My guess is that the Fair Tax proposal, however, is a recognition that he must kiss the Norquist ring.
I'm no fan, and I agree that he's a wacky if not wacko. But I do think it would be helpful, in terms of fostering a political realignment, to have an ideological loose cannon running on the Republican ticket (unless he wins).
January 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't underestimate Huckabee. One of his current proposals is the fair tax, and the complete elimination of the IRS:
Although, according to the CBS article, most experts point out that such a plan would be unworkable, Huckabee is certainly attracting libertarians as a result of his advcocacy of the fair tax, and in combination with his evangelical support, this offers a serious challenge to other Republican candidates.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 4, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just hit my inbox. I love it when things are that easy:
The economic consequences of HuckabeeTidbit: "Call it crazy, this notion that Jesus might have considered the alleviation of poverty a moral imperative for government, but Huckabee appears to believe it."
January 4, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's gotten pretty goofy, with Wannabee scaring conservative pundits with his "do-gooderism" and also pushing the Unfair Tax, (which would of course be highly regressive inherently, thus needing rebates).
Given that no one can reverse the course of the ship of state quickly (unless it's already run aground), I don't worry much about the tax proposal. Still, Wannabee falls into the category of being carefuil what you wish for.
January 4, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I don't support the fair tax, it's fascinating that here we have a conservative candidate winning with a platform which, considering the rebates, essentially constitutes (cover your eyes, conservative readers) socialism!
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 4, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. All tax reformers want to avoid being considered heartless monsters, so all proposals of flattening involve a poverty-line cutoff. But since we already have that, how is a flat tax Socialism?
As to fairness and/or flatness, the (un)Fair Tax is neither. There would be huge arguments over what is taxable, as well as what is the poverty line. And in order to define poverty we are back to arguing over what is income.
And the real laugh is that while the wealthy have to pay for competent tax advice now, and the poor can skip filing, with (un)Fair Tax it's reversed. The poor need help to get their best result, and the wealthy simply spend as they wish, while saving the money on tax advice.
Wannabee talks nice, scaring folks like Jonah Goldberg, but I don't expect any move toward actual progessive policies, more the opposite.
January 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, you're correct: the fair tax doesn't involve the nationalization of industry or other elements of traditional socialism. But the rebate system, in which lower income folks would have the amounts they paid in sales tax refunded to them, essentially represents the redistribution of wealth, or at least income, so many conservatives will surely see it as creeping socialism. There are arguments about whether the fair tax would ultimately represent a progressive (as a result of the rebates) or regressive system, but my point is more that this seems to indicate some impending schism within the Republican pary.
And please note that I wasn't arguing for the fair tax, which seems to my admittedly non-economics-trained mind unworkable, merely pointing out that it's interesting that this is a proposal being put forth by a conservative.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 4, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wannabee talks nice, scaring folks like Jonah Goldberg, but I don't expect any move toward actual progessive policies, more the opposite.
That is surely correct. Any Republican President is going to be beholden to the interests that are in play in the party (or, possibly, to represent those interests, which sounds less sinister). So even if H. were something different, it would be hard for him to act on that.
By the same token, I don't expect any move toward actual progressive policies coming from a Democratic president, or at least not with the boldness that I think is possible in the current environment.
But the point - my point, at least - isn't about elected officials so much as the grassroots. If a President Huckabee (chills down my spine) were elected, it seems as though it might be in part because of some kind of social justice conservative, people who would be disaffected by the presidency they'd likely get, and might be more amenable to progressivism for it.
That's an unlikely scenario. But I do think that there is a feather or splinter, to mix metaphors in close succession, on the conservative side that may be turning our way. That probably won't play out exactly how I want it to, but it might at least play out in ways that bring things a little closer than they were to where I'd like them to be, if only by fracturing the conservative message.
January 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is a figment of my fevered imagination (more on that later). I thought I remembered a southern governor suggesting higher taxes on the right to alleviate poverty several years ago. But perhaps I was really recalling this post by artappraiser less than a month ago. Though it seems like the point does not live or die on whether this actually happened, and was Huck himself.
January 5, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Devon:
... not to mention global warming and the environment. (I forget their euphemism for it.)
Yep, and poverty and racism too.
Conservative Christians and evangelicals are more diverse than you'd think by listening to their most vocal leadership. An Obama administration would do a lot to break up their coalitions and bring many of them on board with looking for real solutions to actual human problems.
Our truths (how palpable and evident soever) are rendered as incredible...
January 4, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about Edwards, Nathan.
It's a pity that he's not getting a lot of airtime, like Obama has enjoyed. I think the more people that hear him, the more will vote for him.
I'll get on the hope train myself.
:)
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 4, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. I haven't yet decided between Obama and Edwards, although I do not like Clinton as a candidate. Events in Iowa may put more emphasis on these three candidates, and they may differentiate themselves further.
In a way, I would like to see some of the less successful candidates keep a visible role, since some may be considered for the VP nomination or cabinet posts. The OVP has been growing in power, although Cheney took it to an entirely new level. We can't afford to look at the second slot as "ticket balancing".
If two candidates emerged, both qualified, and willing to work together as president and VP, that would be great. If ticket balancing were interpreted not as appealing to different constituencies, but bringing skills complementary to the President, that also makes some sense, and, in that context, Richardson still interests me.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 4, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Edwards is suited to the VP role -- we've already been down that path. But I think he'd make a phenomenal AG.
January 4, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That's a very appealing prospect.
January 4, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be an excellent choice.
With the growing power of the Vice Presidency, not in this Administration alone, it is worth considering, with any Presidential candidate, potential VPs who would be complementary in governance.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That hadn't occurred to me, but that would be an outstanding choice (assuming he isn't our next President, as I'm not yet decided between Edwards, Obama, or--I guess not--Dodd).
Wes Clark has always seemed to me Vice-Presidential timber. I know he's a Clintonite, but he'd complement Obama very well.
January 4, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hats off to the organizational skills of his team.
That said, what do we have in Obama? A candidate who's been so busy applying for his next job he can't be bothered with doing his current job. A candidate who happily wears tired right wing frames, who stands tall with a homophobe, who drapes himself in empty language of nonpartisanship for the sake of nonpartisanship. But, man, he gives really good speech.
Sure, he's "inspirational." Whatever that means. But based on his actions in the Senate, as president, he'll make nice with conservatives, scold liberals, avoid taking a principled stand on important issues, and neither sign nor veto legislation, though he may occasionally write "present" on the bills that cross his desk. But at least his State of the Union speeches will rock.
I'm glad Hillary landed where she did, because the last thing Democrats need is more DLC triangulation. But Obama is barely better. It's sad, if unsurprising, that Dodd dropped out because he represents what Democrats need to be doing: standing up to the Republicans, not trying to be their friends.
At least Edwards still has a shot, if a long one. Sigh.
January 4, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That said, what do we have in Obama? A candidate who's been so busy applying for his next job he can't be bothered with doing his current job."
Funny, that was exactly the same problem I had with Edwards when he was my Senator.
January 4, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point. Not that Edwards is likely to be the nominee anyway, and with Obama we still have a candidate who attacks liberals, makes nice with conservatives, pushes right wing frames, and promotes High Broderism as a virtue. We need more of that?
January 4, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"with Obama we still have a candidate who attacks liberals, makes nice with conservatives, pushes right wing frames, and promotes High Broderism as a virtue."
I just don't see any of this. His "attacks" on liberals have been little more than gentle critiques. As for "frames," count me in the camp that thinks Lakhoff is highly overrated, and that the whole notion of Obama "pushing" these frames is a little dense.
As for making nice with conservatives, at some point Democrats have to capture people who haven't voted for us in the past, and that's going to mean some people who voted for Reagan and Bush. As his core message has been unrelentingly progressive, I don't see getting conservatives to buy into that message as being a bad thing.
January 4, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bacon:
What may seem gentle critiques are potentially damaging. For example; the Social Security crisis remark was jaw dropping.
For decades Conservatives lusted for the destruction of Social Security. Year before last they took a shot and found it was still, to some extent, the third rail. That the jolt wasn't absolutely fatal should give us caution about allowing that door to open. Just the tiniest crack will get us back into a needless debate over what should be a non-issue all the while putting a crucial institution at risk.
So Obama decides he'll turn off the juice on the third rail.
If, by doing so, Obama felt he was strengthening his reputation as conciliator, then I would have to label his actions at best reckless and at worst deeply cynical.
Democrats don't have to attract hard core Republicans to achieve a consistent winning majority. That's both silly and self-defeating. Blurring the lines between parties is a fatal move. Too many people already think there's little dfifference.
Turning many independents into solid Democrats will do nicely and is certainly possible. Edwards' policy agenda is the key to turning independents into Democrats.
My 'hope' (or probably wishful thinking) is that Obama's schtick is to achieve that purpose, a flanking movement to get flexible people to consider policy issues and identify them with Democrats.
January 4, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That pretty much sums up Obama. His mentor in the Senate was the detestable Lieberman. On the Campaign trail he's basically thrown red meat to the right wing frames, as with his controversial statements about the (nonexistent) Social Security crisis. He's gone out of his way to provoke gays. He's attacked unions. And although he makes much of his failure to vote on the Iraq War (when he wasn't in the Senate), he's supported the Bush administration down the line whenever push came to shove.
Of course, for those who love his ass, there's always time for another excuse.
January 4, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading people like Nathan talk about the evil corporations, I am struck by how similar the tone and message is to the fanatics within the Republican party - you know, the ones that think everything from poor posture to annoying telemarketing calls can be solved by lower taxes.
It's monomania - the obsessive devotion to a single cause as the explanation for one's ills. As such, it's largely bullshit. I say this as one who has become more convinced that some rebalancing is needed as a counterweight to the influence of the business sector on politics.
The source of discontent in this country is complex, and it involves more than just the fact that corporations have too much influence on politics. Start with the fact that for seven years, we have been led by an exceptionally inept president and administration. Americans are about can-do optimism. A government that bungles one thing after another, including a major war, is bound to put them in a sour mood, hungering for change. Then move on to the dominance of ideological conservatism on politics, a movement that, at best, commands the allegiance of maybe 30% of the electorate. Then there's the fear of terrorism which, even if you think is overblown, is hardly irrational after the trauma of 9/11 and the continuing stream of terrorist incidents around the world. Finally, there is the personal insecurity that people feel that relates to the state of the economy. As a result of these factors, and others, the country is in - to coin a phrase - a "malaise".
To me, it feels like 1980, with an inept government representing a failed ideology embroiled in a foreign crisis in a time of economic insecurity. Obama is essentially following the Reagan script of projecting optimism about America and sending a message that makes people feel good about themselves and their country. That's why I think Obama is, like Reagan was, in the right place at the right time with the right message.
The chances of him pivoting towards the monomania Nathan is looking for and starting to rant about the evil corporations is zero. And good thing too.
January 4, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad-- An inept administration? For whom? Corporate profits have soured in the last seven years, large corporations have received hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts, and tax rates on the wealthy were slashed. The "ineptness" is a feature, not a bug, for corporate interests from this administration, since it allowed them to feast on lax regulation and corporate handouts.
As to monomania, there are lots of issues to talk about, but the issue is not "evil" corporations but corporate POWER, the disproportionate power wielded by those with money versus those who power is based on one person, one vote. Voting is just one exercise of power over policy and the problem is that the corporate exercise of power has been devastating. You can't talk about health care without addressing the issues of power that have prevented affordable health care being made available in this country. If Obama just makes people feel complacent about that inequality of power, then he will ultimately fail to deliver on the hope he is promising.
January 4, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean "soared", not "soured". It is a testament to your monomania that you would consider corporations making money to be inherently suspect. If you want to talk about income inequality, that's one thing, but the fact of corporate profits does not in itself indicate terribly things are happening. That's something the left still does not understand after decades. They still think in zero-sum terms - that if companies are making money, someone else is getting screwed.
This is a bad thing? You want the government manufacturing its own paperclips, personal computers, fighter jets and buildings? No? Then please tell me how the government is supposed to run without contracting with big companies.
I suspect that what you really mean is that the Bushies have outsourced some things that were formally done by the government to government contractors. That is true and it has in some cases resulted in disaster. We all know the terrible record of private security contractors in Iraq, for example. But to imply that this sort of thing is representative of government contractors in general is totally over the top.
Furthermore, you seem to be linking increased corporate profits to the increases in government contracts going to corporations. This is, to put it mildly, a stretch.
Tax cuts for the rich are NOT a function of corporate power. They are a function of the power of movement conservatism, which is not the same thing, as any movement conservative will tell you. If anything, corporations, especially big ones, are much more interested in balanced budgets, because they typically mean lower interest rates.
You could argue - and I'm sure you will - that corporate support for the GOP enables the anti-tax zealots to wreak their havoc. This is true, but it is not the question at hand.
Corporate influence on government is most destructive in three areas: deregulation that weakens consumer and environmental protection, weakening of labor rights enforcement (and kudos to you for helping to keep that issue visible) and is the proliferation of trade barriers, sweetheart deals and tax breaks that restrict competition and cost taxpayers money for the benefit of a connected few. See how George W. Bush made his money. That's where the fight should be.
As in your other points, you are confusing many issues. The issue in healthcare is NOT corporate power in general. It is the power of specific industries, such as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that are ONE factor in why we have not been able to reform our healthcare system. The far bigger factor is an ideological opposition to the expansion of the government on the part of movement conservatism, which dominates the Republican party.
I can tell you with utmost assurance that the vast majority of business would like nothing more than to see a reform of the healthcare system. The current system is considered a major American competitive disadvantage by most business leaders as it saddles business with excessive costs compared to their counterparts in other countries that have different healthcare systems.
I've said this many times - healthcare reform will happen when a creative leader brings together consumer advocates AND business leaders. Ranting about malign corporate influence is not a way to make that happen, which is one reason why I suspect Obama is not doing it. This is not, as you would say, making people feel complacent about the inequality of power. It is realizing that an opportunity exists to redefine the problem in a way that enables a coalition for change.
January 4, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that you mistaken about corporate profits. They have huge profits. The problem is that they overpay CEOs, an outrage,though shareholders have done well, and they are not spending it on capital equipment. The latter is one reason why there is a negative impact through the economy.
The notion that you are going to regulate corporations and they will both sit idly and that it won't have a negative impact on the economy is said by someone who has never been in business.
We are in the middle of a populist wave. Lou Dobbs and John Edwards both tell the middle class they are in trouble and it is foreigners and moneied interests who are fault. The majority uses its power to take money away from others just as the minority has been structuring tax and regulatory schemes to their advantage. Hopefully before this wave crashes new social insurance programs will be in place that cost and benefit virtually everyone as Social Security and Medicare do.
Ulitimately the populist wave will cause a real contraction in the economy, no one will work too long for others when they don't need to. Dividing a contracting economic pie is not much fun and social dangerous. The populists will be back with William Jennings Bryan, an amusing historical figures who gave one great speech.
From the New York Times October, 2006 about corporate profits:
CORPORATE profits have grown at double-digit rates for 17 consecutive quarters, helping equity markets overcome the twin poisons of long-rising interest rates and high energy prices.
[New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/business/yourmoney/01profit.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 4, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
sPh
January 4, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
amen.
bush has taken big political hits to make govt work exactly the way conservatives have been clamoring for, for decades.
I've heard many conservatives here say he did exactly the right thing with his Katrina response, they concede only that he bungled the PR, for example.
Bush has changed this country, in exactly the ways hard-right conservatives have been pushing for. Just think how unpopular he'd be if he'd succeeded in destroying social security; I've heard my own family talk about THAT goal since the 70's. Fortunately, that would have taken more political skill than even bush/cheney have so far mustered.
January 4, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. Talking about the Plutocrats might have worked in 1932. It is not 1932 and we are not in a depression. Edwards us versus them approach to politics is likely to be a loser, if not in November then in his presidency. People want healthcare, but they do not want the their main source of jobs, corporations eviserated. Also Edwards sounds like a version of Bush and Lou Dobbes. The most powerful nation in the history of mankind needs to quake in fear.
Ironically Obama is no where near as anti-establishment as Edwards. If anything as Krugman has pointed out Obama's solutions are not particularly bold. It is also not clear how Obama is going to convince those who think such things are socialism.
The reactions to Obama speak more to the hopes and biases of the left than the realities of Obama.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 4, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think you're wrong about him being progressive. i think he's a demagogue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
January 4, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Obama is not a progressive, never was and never will. I will shy away from the term demagogue because I believe that Obama's campaign was modeled to mimic Bush's 2000 campaign. This may be a tactic only and once he wins, he'll beome more substantive and less slogany.
I know, there is very little support to what I said in our history.
January 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Obama is neither rich nor stupid we can assume he will not govern a la Bush, even if he campaigns that way.
January 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I see it - witness his "feud" with Paul Krugman regarding Social Security's alleged problems - Obama is not a progressive and would therefore not mobilize the electorate in a progressive direction. I see a lot of demagoguery in his oratory and I worry that there is not much "there" there.
Of course, I am over 60 and have finally settled on Hillary (after giving money to Dodd), who is not the darling of progressives, either. Yet, among my friends, I have the rep of being way out there on the left. I do not understand why Hillary's story does not resonate more with liberals. Yes, she has been pragmatic in her career but that's why she is still here. I remember during the 90's that the word was that she was much more liberal than her husband the President.I wonder if some Dems haven't bought into all the negative press about her from Repubs and the press.
January 4, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree that Hillary has had to be pragmatic in her career, and I feel that she is a very powerful person and leader. Unfortunately, all she offers is leadership towards the status quo.
Bill had to work with the dominating corporations, wealthy donors and Republican movement conservatives to even survive let alone achieve anything, and the DLC gave good guidance in how to do that. But that was the early 90's.
The Reagan/Bush41/Bush 43 ideas have dominated American politics since 1980, focused on Reagan's statement "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem." But movement conservative has collapsed. It has failed. It is time for big change.
I have seen nothing from Hillary that suggests she even realizes that.
If she is going to make a change in her image, it better happen before February 5th, and I think it better be a big change. Without such a change, she is toast. For all her strengths, she is the establishment Democratic candidate at a time when the establishment has collapsed and is being rejected in both parties.
January 4, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
superjude,
"...Obama is not a progressive..."
40% of the 18% of caucus participants who identify themselves as "very liberal" went for Obama, 36% of the 36% identifying themselves as "somewhat liberal" went for Obama, as did 33% of the 40% identifying themselves a "moderate" wen for Obama.
On the other hand 42% of the 6% who identified themselves as "conservative" caucused for Edwards.
This whole Obama as "conservative" (whatever that means) or right wing meme has become cliche.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 4, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turnow,
I'm talking about his policies, not how poepoe perceive him.
January 4, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is your perception that is off the mark.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 4, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many fingers am I holding up?
January 4, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many fingers am I holding up?
January 4, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I include the finger in your nose?
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very clever. Hehe, finger up the nose. How glib. How flippant. I bet you've got a million just like that. Hehe. I'm chuckling at your witty bon mot.
It was of course a reference to that climactic scene in George Orwell's 1984, where Winston Smith, having been harassed and tortured by the state's representative, O'Brien, is told that truth, objective truth, fact and history, is all irrelevant. Reality is what the state wants it to be.
He then holds up four fingers and commands Smith to tell him how many there are. Smith says four. O'Brien says five. Reality is what O'Brien says, not what actually is.
I cast you in the role of O'Brien. You have no interest in what is real, regardless of your signature line. Rather, Obama's positions are defined not by his actual words, the positions he takes, the things he actually says and does, but rather by the perceptions of those polled. Could it be they are wrong? No. Could it be they misunderstand or are mislead by their candidate? No. Could it be they project their own sentiments upon a candidate whose true agenda is very different? Of course not! Whatever the poll results say people believe about Obama is what Obama actually is!!!
I'd call you dishonest, but perhaps the better word is delusional.
'Finger up the nose' LOL. Good one. What a card.
January 4, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 4, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that Senator Clinton's campaign is pointing out to the media that Obama is just too liberal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/new-hampshire-will-be-key_n_79873.html
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 5, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Iowa - that's not a serious election anyway. I just got this email from the Clinton campaign forwarded to me (underline not in original):
January 5, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Caucuses draw the hardcore and Iowa is hardly demographically representative of the nation. The contest is far from over.
However, if Obama wins in N.H., and the tracking polls are showing a significant surge, then the S.C. calculus changes.
We will not know until Feb. 5th who the nominee is.
I will be happy with either. I don't think Edwards has the money fight on so is probably now running for VP.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 5, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a bit blusterous - true, NH is technically the first primary election, but it seemed a little odd to put it this way after a loss in what is technically not a primary, exactly.
I'm sure I'll be disappointed by either; that said, I am for that reason happy with either candidate.
January 5, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a wee point on Obama's engagement with the netroots...
Around the time of YearlyKos, Josh did a TPMtv slot with Markos where one of the questions was which of the Democratic candidates was the worst when it came to "blogger outreach" etc.
And Markos and Josh were unanimous that Obama's people were the worst; unresponsive, uninterested etc etc. I wondered at the time if that was simply the big-time bloggers feeling that Obama wasn't giving them enough respect, and maybe Obama's blogger outreach people were prioritizing netroots activists who would do actual fieldwork... perhaps Iowa has given us an answer?
January 4, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The netroots did not, in the end, deliver in '04. Obama did in Iowa what Deaniacs could not do, perhaps the time was not yet ripe but obviously Obama is a better messenger. (FWIW I think he learned that in downstate Illinois in his senate race and applied it in Iowa)
The netroots were right about Bush, right about the war, are right about the extra-constitutional nature of the Cheney regime. Obama was right about the war. That fact alone shows that he is at least aware of the nature of the beast. I hope the netroots have the maturity to evolve with him and not against him.
January 4, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is still crafting his message, but it's beginning to look to me as though the populist message is getting a lot of traction. Last month David Cay Johnston published his new book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). Among other points he makes is that the big box stores like WalMart, Cabella's, Home Depot are playing local governments off against each other to see who can offer the lowest tax burden, then they set the big box story in a town and run the smaller businesses (who DO pay taxes) out of business. The "profit" made by the big box stores is normally about the amount of the tax giveaway, which shows that they are not more efficient than their local competitors. They are simply beginning handed government monopolies.
Usury laws have been eliminated, and we know what has happened to the bankruptcy laws.
Enron pushed deregulation of electric and gas utilities, and in those states that have adopted it, prices have more than doubled and service has gotten more uncertain. Not so where such businesses remained regulated utilities.
[I know I am speaking to the choir here, but we need to keep repeating all this. And Johnston's book is important, both for its source and for its timing.]
This is most clearly Edwards message, but it is also the message along with Huckabee's evangelistic religion. The one segment of Republicans Huckabee did NOT get was the wealthy.
Clinton is the corporatist Democrat and came in third, behind Obama and Edwards, in spite of all the money she spent in Iowa. Romney and Giuliani are the corporatist Republicans, and neither did well. I read where Romney may have spent $100 million in Iowa. Message is defeating money so far.
Obama? I still can't tell what his message is, other than just "We want change. Vote for me - I'm different and I represent change." I think he'll have to flesh that out, and with both Huckabee and Edwards doing well with Populism, that is a likely direction for him to be going.
Next we have
January
05 Sat Wyoming (Republican only)
08 Tues New Hampshire
15 Tues Michigan
19 Sat Nevada
19 Sat South Carolina (Republican)
26 Sat South Carolina (Democrat)
29 Tues Florida
February
01 Fri Maine
After Iowa, the Press is all going to be trying to read the chicken entrails for hints, and those primaries are the chickens. We are gong to hear a lot about it as the reporters are surprised at what they find.
Then 24 states on February 5th.
(For the rest of the schedule see A list of 2008 state primaries and caucuses.)
This is going to be a very interesting month, especially for Populists.
January 4, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is important to note how the media framing is working to undermine the progressive transition. In the first place when one candidate (Republican or Democrat)criticizes another on specific policy issues in an ad it is labeled as an "attack ad" seemingly equivalent to an ad hominum or patently false (Rovian) attack. Secondly when John Edwards talks about opposing the corporate and plutocracy sources of our decline (in contrast to Obama's "I'll work with them" approach) he is starting to be labeled "angry". The path to future progress is goingto be filtered conservatively by the media.
January 4, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Brad is closer to the mark than Nathan here. A presidential campaign is a terrible place to offer detailed policy prescriptions - it rarely allows for nuanced debate, and for most policies, the devil is in the details. And I disagree that Obama has failed to finger the sources of our current discontent; his campaign is built upon a critique of the status quo.
But it's not a populist campaign. It doesn't pit the people against the powerful, the workers against the capitalists. And that would seem to be both the source of its broad appeal and of Nathan's own discontent.
Nathan's also wrong about what it takes to realign an electorate. For the most part, the first vote we cast helps to determine the rest of the votes we'll make throughout our entire lives. That's depressing, but true. If Obama continues to draw young, first-time voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers, as he did in Iowa, that will make a major difference on the American political scene for decades to come. An entire generation, firmly in the Democratic column. Irrespective, I might add, of why they've voted as they have.
January 4, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Cameron,
If as you say, Obama is "A candidate who happily wears tired right wing frames,...", then why did 42% of caucus participants who identify themselves as "conservative" caucus for Edwards?
I may have missed someone else making the point, as I am a skimmer, but I think one of the really significant outcomes of the Iowa event was the large numbers of young folks whom Obama apparently drew into the process. 57% of caucus participants were first timers and 41% of those new folks caucused for Obama.
I am certainly not so arrogant as to make predictions of future primary/caucus outcomes (let alone pronounce what candidate x or y would do as president.) But I think it significant that of the 20% of participants in the democratic caucuses who identify themselves as independents, 41% caucused for Obama.
New Hampshire independents may vote in either the democratic of republican primaries and there are very many independents in N.H.
Obama is within striking distance in N.H., with 7%, or so, still undecided. If he wins in N.H. things will change significantly in South Carolina.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 4, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably because he is a white male. Pretty much the only person I can see calling themselves a 'Conservative Democrat' is a pearl-clutching Dixiecrat.
January 4, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan,
Setting aside who or what Obama identifies as the ultimate problem, isn't it refreshing to have a candidate that sees organizing and the conversion of disaffected citizens into a powerful force as the key to change, rather than TV ads, talking points, and triangulation?
I know Obama's message isn't terribly labor-centric, but I wonder if the key to effective organizing in the 21st century won't involve moving beyond the workplace and into more community structures.
But maybe I'm just deluding myself into thinking of Obama as Saul Alinksy's heir.
January 4, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan,
"I know Obama's message isn't terribly labor-centric..."
Of the 22% of caucus participants who identify themselves as being from union household, 30% caucused for Clinton, 30% for Obama, and only 24% for Edwards the presumed labor candidate.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 4, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and am excited by Obama's mobilization of new folks. That was the point of my original post back in June and I've been more favorable to Obama than many folks precisely because I see mobilization and organizing as a good thing unto itself.
But the issue isn't just workplace centric, but the problems of corporate responsibility which extends from subprime mortgage meltdowns to health care. My point isn't to trash Obama, who I am favorable enough towards that I may vote for even over Edwards, but to raise what I see as a lack in his analysis. "Change" is good but if you want to make change against entrenched interests, winning an election isn't enough-- you need to target that energy for the longer haul.
January 4, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
People laughed at Obama's line to Clinton, "and I'm looking forward to you advising me as well, Hillary," but it's emblematic of Obama's actual approach. He doesn't have all the correct analysis (though he understands a lot more than he can talk about during the campaign), but he is willing to listen to others who he admits are better versed than himself on various issues.
And hopefully we'll see that he brings a bunch of good people into his administration. As overblown as this comparison may get to be, look at who Lincoln brought in and how he worked with them. Compare also with Bush II, and how he brought in such a bunch of incompetents and cronies. Can we expect to see anything like that from Obama?
Our truths (how palpable and evident soever) are rendered as incredible...
January 4, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
You're very insightful- you are, I think, deluding yourself into thinking of Obama as Saul Alinsky's heir. The Illinois Senator has in fact been triangulating. When do we start taking him at his (misguided) word- that Democrats are as extreme and partisan as Republicans and that the country has to transcend the solutions traditionally promoted by those big, bad labor unions and other progressive interest groups?
January 4, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the way that I'm thinking, though, your response doesn't address the core concept.
I work with the local IAF affiliate here, and the strategy we pursue has an awful lot of resemblance to Obama's strategy. You don't start out with positions, or goals, or enemies, or whatever. You start by bringing people together (yes, even conservatives -- we have a fairly conservative Baptist congregation in our IAF conference) in their role as members of community organizations such as churches, neighborhood associations, and other groups. Because you deal with them in that role, rather than as taxpayers or employees, you have a chance to put together their aspirations for social change and place it at the forefront of an agenda. And oddly enough, when you assemble people in this regard, what emerges naturally is a progressive agenda, simply because of the structure you built, rather than the fights you picked.
Our rather conservative Baptist friends have been shoulder to shoulder with us in getting the city and the largest local employer to pay a living wage, and have been very helpful in getting the polluted creek that runs behind a public housing complex cleaned up.
Obama's policy positions have been vague and generalized. I think that's fine -- I've become quite sick of candidates expecting me to pay attention to 15-point plans that just go into the sausage mill. But by appealing to the sense of every citizen that the world should be a better place, you put people into a more progressive frame of mind right from the beginning, just like you put people in a more conservative frame of mind by calling them "taxpayers."
What Alinsky did in the Back of the Yards was to pull together the existing organizations first, then get them to agree on what they wanted to improve. The result was radical change. Obama learned his politics in Alinsky's organization in Chicago, and his campaign has a very similar ring to the work that our branch of IAF does.
The hell with frames and triangulation and partisanship and whatever. Appeal to the progressive ideals that lie in the hearts of all but the coldest hearted Americans, and you get political realignment in the progressive direction.
January 4, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"When do we start taking him at his (misguided) word- that Democrats are as extreme and partisan as Republicans and that the country has to transcend the solutions traditionally promoted by those big, bad labor unions and other progressive interest groups?"
When he actually says anything remotely resembling your utterly dishonest paraphrase, dolt.
January 4, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink