« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Left-Right Reconciliation: Obama's Bittersweet Pill for us All
we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America
These very words that so profoundly touched and inspired us during the primary have come back to kick us on our liberal rumps. It was so recently we marveled at posts about Obama's appeal to "my lifelong Republican mother." We celebrated his wide appeal to people of rural background and of independent and Republican political orientation. Crossover appeal to unlikely red states confirmed to us that his message was transcendent. Naively, we may have assumed that this unity would occur without concessions on our end.
We are already bawling and screaming, accusing Obama of being a triangulator, flip-flopper, and a capitulator. Indeed, Obama is no longer talking to "us" but rather to "them." Well, surprise my fellow lefties. Unity requires reaching across that ideological divide. Unity requires walking away from meaningless fights which only serve to divide.
Unity requires pointing out the excesses on both sides of the ideological divide and the mistakes committed by members of all races and classes. Unity means that we will have to shake hands with Republicans, talk to them as Johnson did with George Wallace, but that to do so there must be goodwill.
After decades of bitter culture war with so much blood spilled, we are armed to our teeth, and Obama will tell us to lay our weapons down. This may cause much distress for Dr. Krugman and to many of the rest of us fierce warriors of the left. It is especially difficult because we have the enemy surrounded and outnumbered. with Hillary, we had the option to just march in victoriously. With Obama, we will be denied the spoils. Indeed, at times, he will attend to "their" demands more than to ours. That is correct, the prodigal son will oftentimes receive better rewards than the loyal one.
Therefore, if we are so open to generously reaching out to our enemies abroad, it only makes sense to likewise do so here at home, and that is what Obama has in store for us. Success at uniting this country racially and setting common social and economic goals go hand in hand with such compromise. Barack Obama is looking beyond the petty bickering. Although at times the concessions will be bitter, to say the least, let us also keep our eyes on the goal. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. May our viewpoints and ideas be expressed and debated, but let us not allow our deeply entrenched positions to be pitfalls on our goal towards Unity.
Comments (67)
Great post. It reads well with my recent post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/why-did-i-support-obama-oh-yea.php
July 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, even though Allsburg beat me to it, I still want to credit this post for reminding me what this is all about.
July 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twice beat me to it.
July 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know, great minds and all...
July 1, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be unkind but this post seems to be unbelievably naive in that it assumes the republicans are interested in 'unity', whatever that may mean. The republicans I know will use this 'unity' for their own benefit and will still filibuster every goddam bill they don't want passed while beating Obama over the head with all of this empty talk every time he disagrees with them.
It almost seems that you and Allsburg don't really know what republicans are and what drives them. Unity? Not a chance.
July 1, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mistake "Republicans" for "Republican Congressmen." The two groups are not co-extensive. And if Republican Congressmen continue to make the same mistake that you make, there will be fewer of both around in just a couple years.
I know many Republicans, and many of them do want unity. They are even willing to compromise, and willing to vote for a democrat, to get it.
July 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response, had I not been lunching and wining at the local brasserie, would have pointed out the same distinction. Republican voters, as opposed to unscrupulous Republican elected politicians, can be coaxed if their grievances are addressed, and even I will admit that many of their grievances are compelling. It is hard for many of us to make this admission due to the decades of cultural warring (yes Allsburg, just like New Guinea tribes).
I applaud what at this stage I perceive as Obama's pragmatic and visionary strategy of addressing their grievances of principle, if not of policy. It may be mistaken for triangulation and perhaps it is, but at this point, I am still quite willing to trust him. I still believe, in spite of my profound FISA disappointment, that Obama offers something just a bit more visionary with longer term benefits for all, in spite of the short term pains and disillusions.
July 1, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Someone remembered something I said more than 30 minutes ago. That's very humbling...
July 1, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a progressive alternative.
Vote Green. (And, no, Ralph Nader is NOT a Green Party candidate. He may continue to run as an independent, but he is NOT a GP candidate; the Green nominee will be chosen July 12.)
Or vote Socialist or Social Democratic, if that's an option where you live.
July 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You suggest a valid, compelling litmus test by which to evaluate the issues du jour. It works for me, in terms of understanding and accepting Obama's positions on FISA, gun control, capital punishment and government funding for church outreach programs. It doesn't work as well (for me) in justifying a censure of Wesley Clark, who, by virtue of his military career, is a hero of the right as well as of the left. But never mind; I am surprised that I feel as strongly about that as I do. Perhaps the intensity of my disappointment with Obama' response (re: Clark) is an indication that my compromise scale is currently overloaded.
Your litmus test will be put to the ultimate test if and when Obama must declare himself on action against Iran. (Not that his response, whatever it may be, won't be more thoughtful than McCain's.) In an effort to achieve a purple nation, I hope we will not compromise to the extent that we condone the shedding of more red blood, by anyone, anywhere.
July 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you loud and clear with regards to Clark, but if you missed my delayed response yesterday and judging from Clark's subsequent reiterations, I repeat that I am convinced that Clark is honored to play the soldier. Clark is a truly admirable character who undoubtedly understands the profound stakes of this election and puts these before any of his political aspirations. He is uniquely suited to take on the McCain legend. I firmly believe that this and the future of this nation is of much greater importance to him than his career or veep aspirations. Yes, martyrdom is sign of the great soldier.
July 1, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is precisely how I read Clark as well. I'm glad to see someone concuring with me. Thanks.
July 2, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post AdAbs. I agree with you about Obama's potential. But about this unity thing...
You know, I've never thought that partisanship was a particularly bad thing. I think I prefer it to bipartisanship where nobody gets what they want.
You know, sometimes compromising with a bad idea just means you get the worst possible idea. I know Obama has aspirations towards a more useful politics than what we get from our two party stalemate but there are good reasons for us to have parties and even partisanship.
I do want to see where Obama will decide that he has to stand his ground. I still have faith that he can only be pushed so far.
July 1, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have been warier of the term "Unity" and its broder-esque, bi-partisan connotation and instead stuck to the reconciliation theme. The difference between the two is that broderistic unity and stalemate are one and the same. Reconciliation, on the other hand, can lead to accomplishments akin to those achievable by former rivals who unite against common challenges. Ultimately, left and right will need to set aside the cultural war bickering to confront the many crises, national and global, of which we are today all too well aware. I strongly suspect that Obama may just shake us off our political groundhog day.
Your input is always apprecited. Thanks.
July 1, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, truly great post. Thanks for that. =)
July 1, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Although at times the concessions will be bitter, to say the least, let us also keep our eyes on the goal."
You're going to have to help me with that. What is the goal? I mean if you want unity, wouldn't it just be easier to cancel the election and crown Dubya Emperor? It would fit with our imperial foreign policy and casual disregard for civil rights.
I mean didn't we sort of get this party of Jefferson going when old Tom had a hissy fit about John Adams getting a bit high and mighty? We haven't had this unity fantasy since before 1800 and I'm finding it increasingly absurd.
Some things just plain matter enough to fight over them. And I'd be hard put to think of a great President after Washington who wasn't fighting over things that matter.
July 1, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take your question very seriously because I do share your point of view. Unfortunately, time constraints do not allow me to flesh out a response with the care that your points deserve, but I do invite you to entertain my argument about the political context of Obama's FISA cave-in.
I will, however, briefly refer back to his speech on race, because in great part, this is the crux of the divide. In it, he concedes that there are legitimate grievances even from white conservatives although these are oftentimes mis-directed. Obama wants the other side to know that as a black president, he recognizes that he can address conservative white concerns if the level of discourse could only be elevated a few notches. Ultimately, this dialog, more than any liberal policy, will lead to more enduring healing of our nation.
July 1, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama only caved on FISA if he rules out criminal prosecution (which the bill allows).
Awesome post. Here's a song about forgiveness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbipT_qaSao&feature=related
July 1, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign has mirrored that of Bill Clinton in 1992. He too took pains to distance himself from hot button issues that had riled conservatives and foiled liberals. He too called for reconciliation, unity and bridging the gap between left and right, liberal and conservative, black and white, religious and secular. He too promised a third way. He too was somewhat vague when it came to the details of how this would be accomplished.
Well, look what it got him. Krugman, in my view, was dead on when he said that leaders who have campaigned on specific platforms for change have had more success achieving that change. This would seem to be the perfect opportunity for such a campaign. Thus far, Obama seems fixated on running away from his party. It may get him elected, but it may also make it harder for him to achieve the change he promises.
I hope I'm wrong.
July 1, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, he's not entirely ignoring the Left:
Obama opposes California ban on same-sex marriage
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/BAS111I682.DTL
July 1, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, the above link is to the letter he wrote to the Alice B. Toklas group. Here's a link to the story on-topic:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/BA8J11I4S1.DTL&tsp=1
July 1, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That does it. I'm changing my nick to ThreadKiller!
July 1, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
an excellent and moving thread.
In relation to Armchair Guerrilla's comments on Bill Clinton promise of the third way, and then the rather different reality-- remember that Clinton would not have been elected had it not been for Ross Perot, consequently the right viewed him as illegitimate. He didn't have a mandate and couldn't really deliver on his promise. Bush, of course, WAS illegitimate, but pretended that he had a mandate.
Obama is trying to build a coalition from which to govern and get us talking to each other and working together. Indeed the challenges we face are so great that we must.
July 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"After decades of bitter culture war with so much blood spilled, we are armed to our teeth, and Obama will tell us to lay our weapons down."
Didn't John Lennon already do that?
July 1, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I’m all for the unity pony. I just think it has to ride from their side to ours (oops, maybe I'm not that unificated). They have taken this country down and if we (meaning all of us) don’t fight tooth and nail to put it back together, there will eventually be a point of no return. The country wants America back. Of course, shake hands and welcome any and all who want to roll back the neocon damage, but don’t concede before the fight has even begun.
Politics is partisanship. Yes, the different sides work as colleagues and compromises and negotiations take place to get things done. But our duopoly-holding Republicans and Democrats aren’t brothers. It is about power and the one that has the most, has more final say. As Bluebell pointed out, this is not some relic of the “chaotic” ‘60s. I’m sure it was much the same with Jefferson and Adams as well as amongst ancient Greeks and Romans.
This “post-“ prefix (post-partisan, post-racial, etc.) is a magic word though. Actions are not political but transcendent. Any compromised position can be explained away as transformative (reaching out to one side or the other). Any issue is only sodder to be sacrificed to unity. This is not what is good about Obama’s candidacy; it’s what is wrong with it. It allows him to disparage core liberal values and liberals themselves if they are from the “divisive past” before Reagan showed us that those DFHs were the problem.
Of course, everyone rushes to the “center” during the GE. I was not that surprised with this new “change” and wasn’t alarmed at the pandering to the right (for unity purposes only, right?). I didn’t think it was all that dangerous until FISA. But look at the overall program: pro-NAFTA and anti-campaign finance reform and death penalty and guns and bush’s faith-based initiative and dismissing anyone who can be tied to pre-St. Reagan ‘60s “divisiveness” (read liberal). He’s obviously rolling out a new product before August and it looks nothing like last year’s model.
July 1, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one way to think about it: why has the Bush administration sucked so badly?
A large part of the reason is that they've pursued partisanship for its own sake. They ignored our common concerns (like global warming) in order to pick fights about, e.g., keeping Terry Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
I like Obama's approach, not because I want to be nice to Republicans -- and not because I trust them to stop fighting -- but because I don't want to reproduce their stupid-ass mistakes.
July 1, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like, say, acting all tough on security or bypassing FISA and constitutional safeguards?
July 2, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Like letting our governing priorities be defined by old grievances.
Bush let his agenda be defined by his resentments -- about the left, about Bill Clinton, about Saddam Hussein, and probably about his dad.
If we stay fixated on Bush, we'll be making the same mistake.
July 2, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to make the point totally clear: why do left bloggers care so passionately about the details of FISA review?
Well, in 1999, how many of us knew how FISA worked? How many even knew that FISA existed?
A minority, I suspect. We care about it *now* because FISA has been an area where Bush's arrogance has been most insulting.
We're right to care about the details of FISA review. Those details matter. But we need to keep a sense of perspective, and not let our anger at Bush define our priorities.
July 2, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word!
July 2, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the Bill supposedly allows criminal prosecution is mute unless some form of discovery takes place. Without evidence for an indictment there can be no criminal prosecution. The whole point of the fight against immunity from a legal standpoint was that through the discovery that those cases would have yielded, evidence of potentially illegal activity could have been gleaned. I do not think most people cared whether the Telecoms were defeated in court. The point was to gather the facts about Bush's illegal conduct. As we all know he has successfully withheld all the facts claiming executive privilege. One very potent only way to pry that loose would be when a judge orders the defendant's to produce documents through pre-trial discovery.
Without these civil cases we may never get the information that could establish provable illegal conduct on the part of the White House.
Additionally, it is not necessary to give the President the overarching power that the FISA Bill provides. If anyone reads the broad outlines of FISA it is very clear that this law is more than broad enough to allow for the intelligence gathering to keep our country safe.
The abuses of Richard Nixon, which this FISA revision will allow, were the very thing that FISA as it now stands was created to stop.
I am a fervent Obama supporter. We simply must place a Democrat in the White House to save the Supreme Court. But the logic of triangulation is faulty by its very nature. When is there ever a time that there is not too much on the line, or too much pending matters, to stand up and say no to the status quo?
This FISA Bill is not some ancillary legislation that does not matter. It effectively undoes the protections for we the people that a much more courageous congress of yesteryear put in place after it was discovered that Richard Nixon was using the intelligence apparatus of the US government to spy on his political enemies. This new version of FISA is an invitation for the same kinds of abuses.
I am disappointed. When will be the right time to stand up for issues that really matter?
July 2, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. It takes a really light reading of American history to come up with this conclusion. This legislation already exists. It has been updated in every decade sine it was passed in 1978. This update actually closes technology loopholes that didn't exist during the last update, which is why Barack supports it.
He also understands that a case which is summarily dismissed will never have a discovery phase. The Supreme Court has already upheld similar 4th Amendment violations (sobriety checkpoints, airport security, etc.) as being necessary to maintain domestic order and security. It is likely they would rule the same way on this one for national security reasons alone, if not for other reasons such as protections in place for the concerns you express.
Having said all that, we need to acknowledge certain facts about ourselves as a nation. We have been violating the Constitution six ways from Sunday since it was written. We wrote a Constitutional violation into the original document with the Three-Fifths Clause. We are a blood-thirsty and ruthless people, under democrats and republicans alike, who will violate the Constitution at a moments notice for a greater or more pressing cause.
Not a single president in the list of 43 white men has managed to get through a single term in office without violating the Constitution using existing precedent and existing laws.
What I would like to see is not some meaningless stand on tweaking complex laws or in providing immunity for something that they are already immune to. I want Barack to begin the deprogramming process that has allowed America to become a place where a majority of its citizens are willing to compromise certain rights for illusions of security based on lies and poor international diplomacy.
Barack needs to get elected before he can change the national narrative. See my General Quarters, General Quarters - All Hands On Deck blog from today.
Now is not the time to settle old scores with republicans or to play Don Quixote with fringe issues. When I saw fringe, that is not to imply that this issue is not important and or shouldn't be on our list of things to do. It is important and should be on that list for President Obama to address.
But for democratic presidential candidate Obama who wants to get a chunk of conservative votes (both republican and independent) this issue has a totally different meaning. He has to negotiate this in a way the a good portion of frightened Americans don't think he is naive. That is a fine line to walk.
For me, he has earned the benefit of the doubt on his general election strategy. I think that he has captured so many republican votes is an indication that he knows what he is doing. Based on his history and his writing, it isn't a stretch for me to believe he will be as progressive and as bold as American voters allow him to be.
My two cents for the penny they are worth these days.
July 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This cliched rhetoric about unity has nothing to do with 1)reversing himself on campaign finance, 2)bundling money through lobbyists, or working for 3)coal and 4)ethanol interests. These are corporatist moves, not ones that unify contrasting political philosophies.
July 2, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) He revised his opinion based on the GOP's stance on "compromise" and his own evolving ideas on financing this year via small donors. He would like to win the election using all the tools at his disposable, including an American people who clearly want him to be president.
2) He hasn't bundled money via a lobbyist since it was apparent he could run a different type of campaign. He has also never faced a single accusation of voting in support of special interests or any ethical violations. In fact, he worked on the widest-ranging ethics reform in Senate history. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
3) Recognizing that ethanol and cleaner coal may need to be a part of a huge patchwork-quit of short term solutions is not being a corporatist. It is being a realist. We will phase dirty technology out as new technology comes on-line to replacement or as new behavior patterns emerge to make it unnecessary.
I would suggest a slightly more nuanced view of things, but that's just me. I am trying not to let my burning passion for progressive change taint a pragmatic view of what it will take to attain a governing majority and reverse all these trends.
Our economy will take a massive amount of re-regulation before Obama has a chance of matching the corporate players. I find his positions to be realistic and pragmatic.
July 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama’s Refusal of Lobbyists’ Money Has its Limits"
But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.
Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.
“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.
“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/
July 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of Obama's money has been raised via individual contributions averaging a couple hundred dollars each. There is no proof to back up allegations of collecting lobbyist cash in exchange for legislative favors. If you have such evidence, please feel free to provide a link.
July 2, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? The article (or the one run in thr Boston Globe over the summer) state how he's bundling money from corporate interests. If it's reasonable to assume that these "wealthy interests" are giving money to Obama money for nothing in return, good luck with that.
July 2, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, you are going to cite articles published over a year ago as proof of hypocrisy today? in April of 2007, Barack didn't know he could be successful with a new type of campaign, so was relying on old methods. Why is this such a hard concept to get?
July 2, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that his Presidential campaign has been actively raising money from corporate lobbyists from the beginning and, when one combines this with his reversal on public financing, this is one of may reversals/equivocations that have nothing to do with politcal "unity."
July 2, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
barack actively raised cash at the beginning and subsequently stopped. That is the foundational point that you are missing that makes the entire rest of your argument fail.
July 2, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
To #3:
"Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html
"Clinton, Obama Coal Comments Criticized by Environmental Group:
Presidential candidates’ parroting of coal industry talking points raise questions about their commitment to clean energy; Clinton even equivocates on mountaintop removal"
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0320-07.htm
July 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are free to use a single, biased source for your opinions, but that doesn't mean I am obliged to do the same.
I have seen plenty of smart and pragmatic scientists who insist it will take every tool at our disposal, including ethanol and coal. I don't believe that we can abandon anything that may allow a drastic reduction in fossil fuels, which mean maintaining existing infrastructure as we transition.
That Obama sought the advice of experts in a field that he is considering as one solution to a diverse problem is hardly surprising and shows a smart method of determining policy.
July 2, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, those are two different sources. Where is the bias in the Times piece? Or the other one? And plenty of environemental scientists will explain how, overall, ethanol is an inefficent use of energy, especially when fossil fuels are involved in bringing it to market. They even did an epsisode about the Ethanol Pledge on the West Wing! As for coal, same story--a fossil fuel, which, along with ethanol, are "coincidentally" the two fuel sources that help Obama's campaign.
July 2, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. You're right. Coal and ethanol are evil and Barack is a hustler who will never change anything. Obama is in the pocket of the coal and ethanol lobby, the latter being so influential it makes the defense and medical lobbies going at McCain look like chumps.
Or, perhaps, this entire debate will lead to solutions that aren't even on the radar yet? Perhaps by settling for an imperfect solution today leads to a perfect solution tomorrow?
Perhaps we are able to sequester most of the carbon from coal to power an existing grid that supplies electric cars, supplemented by household solar and wind?
Perhaps hydrogen takes the place of coal at these power plants as that technology matures through the use of biotechnology?
Perhaps Peabody Coal becomes Peabody Wind and Solar because we start an era of raised expectations as we take over and not an era of retribution like the last transition.
Perhaps subsidies for commodity corn growing can go to making corn plastics someday instead by way of ethanol production initially? It's all corn and none of it is fit for human consumption and it employs a vast percentage of middle America.
Do advocate sacrificing good solutions even though perfect ones don't exist?
July 2, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to discuss this, try to stay focused. This isn't about the morality of coal or ethanol--it's about sorting through Obama's political moves as being about political reconciliation versus corporatist.
July 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to see any sort of reconciliation as being corporatist if any corporation makes out positively in the process.
By the very nature of our society, corporations will be part of the political process.
I dispute such a simplistic framing of the choices before us as Corporatist versos Political Reconciliation.
July 2, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't that a line from the 2006 Robin Williams movie ' Man of the Year'??
July 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
... at the end, when he goes on SNL and comes clean about not really being the president-elect
July 2, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Borrowed from Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech, yes.
July 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unity requires reaching across that ideological divide. Unity requires walking away from meaningless fights which only serve to divide." Strange that Ronald Reagan, whom Obama has called a transformative figure, was able to persuade so many former Democrats to join his cause without reaching across the ideological divide. In doing so, he shifted the center far to the right of what it had been as recently as the Nixon administration. Now, though we had hoped that Obama would do for liberalism what Reagan had done for conservatism (at a time when the Republican brand is as weak as it has ever been), we are instead told to forget about FISA, the death penalty for child rapists, the existence of the word “militia” in the second amendment, public financing, etc., etc., because it’s time for all of us to “come together” to solve problems. Apparently the biggest of these problems is the partisan divide, which Obama is choosing to deal with by revealing his “centrist” (which, again, is now further to the right than its ever been before) tendencies. This is sad. Not that I won’t vote for him. Even a tree stump would be better than McCain. But forget about “transformation.” This election will about the lesser of two evils, not about sinking or swimming, but about sinking or treading water.
July 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan didn't shift to the right until after he was elected in 1980. Even after bringing the neocon hammer down for four years, he campaigned as a centrist in 1984 and won 49 states. I still believe Barack will be our progressive Reagan, but we have to get him elected first. The general election is part of that process.
July 2, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan wasn't even close to being a neocon. Absolutely nothing in his foreign policy exhibits that. The necons are an entirely different group.
July 2, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to read some more history books. Reagan's entire administration was a continuation of the neocon coup that started with Nixon. It is the same crew who is behind Baby Bush today. It is same crew of did the last war for Daddy Bush. I am not really sure where you are getting your information, but it is incomplete at best.
July 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply not the case. Bush Sr's foreign policy team were "pragmatic realists"--they weren't neocons. (Which is why all the necons were dismayed when Gates took over.)
Reagan's "entire administration" were necons? Really? Who? What in Reagan's foreign policy was neoconservative?
July 2, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone in both Reagan's and Daddy Bush;'s cabinet were young republicans who grew up under Nixon and Ford. They went to the private sector during the Clinton years and were back with baby Bush.
The vast majority of the republican leadership for the last 40 years has been neocon. They aren't classically conservative in the role of Ike or Teddy of Abe. They are New Conservative - meaning a strong, unilateral foreign policy if necessary combined with corporate-friendly deregulation and social issue fringe issues as political bludgeons at home.
If you don't know even the basics of political history, I am not going to spend my time compiling a list of links to get you started.
July 2, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That all republicans are neocons is absurd. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
July 2, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republican party has pursued a neoconservative strategy for the last 40 years that is counter to the GOP's long standing principles prior to Nixon.
How can you even suggest that isn't the case?
The through-line of neoconservative thinking is quite obvious over that entire time period. In fact, they even co-opted Clinton's years into the corporate-friendly trend.
Stroke of fucking mad genius if you ask me.
July 2, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan was a tax-slashing supply-sider before he was elected. He promised to increase military spending. He gave a famous speech in Philadelphia Miss touting states' rights. His antienvironmentalism was clearly demonstrated by his remark that "trees cause pollution." As California governor he was against increased Medicaid and Social Security benefits. If anything, he tacked to the left after he was elected by increasing taxes and negotiating with the Soviets.
July 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He ran as a traditional conservative, who convinced conservative democrats that he would be the best one to beat the Soviet Union. Voters then weren't any better informed than they are today.
He didn't say he would slash taxes and raise military spending. He offered some vague shit about taking on the Evil Empire, never bothering to say how he would pay for it.
Reagan never increased taxes. He slashed personal tax rates and slashed capital gains and slashed corporate taxes and charged the Cold War to our children's debate account. Reagan tripled the debt during his first four years in office because he cut taxes, not because he raised them.
In fact, Daddy Bush had to raise taxes despite his campaign pledge (and likely losing many votes to Perot) because the government was seriously in the red when he took over.
Reagan was evil and certainly part of the neocon coup that has been raping this country for 40 years, however successful he may have been in duping a large percentage of the people on the right and left.
July 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Bush pere referred to Reagan's voodoo economics, he was talking about Reagan's campaign promise to raise revenue by slashing taxes. Reagan did slash taxes but raised agreed to a 100B tax hike the next year, which he and other supply siders insisted was not a hike but a "reform." In 1983, he raised gas taxes and in 1984 closed more loopholes for business that raised 50B over three years. As for his appealing to centrists, I suppose Falwell's moral majority, who actually put Reagan over the top, were centrists. And, no, he was not a neocon, even if future neocons served in his administration. It is you, Jason, who needs to double check your history.
July 2, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You play semantical games with the historical record. You cite a couple small items as somehow indicative of a different trend. Reagan and Daddy Bush and Baby Bush and the rest of the nasty, nefarious crew are New Conservatives.
They believe in the interests of the elite over the common good. They believe in big government as long as it enriches private concerns. They are not old school GOP republicans. These people considered Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were too liberal.
They created a think tank industry that promoted horrible ideas of how to best manage government and then placed ideologues into positions of authority when they took over to prove themselves right.
Reagan started the deregulation craze. He allowed Wall Street to dominate the interests of Main Street in a way that hadn't been seen since FDR.
My grasp on history is just fine.
July 2, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and I forgot the tax reform of 1986, which, yes did cut personal taxes but was the largest corporate tax hike in history.
July 2, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, it was you who said Reagan didn't raise taxes, which is just not true. But, yes, he was a horrible president. Still, he took the country with him, and, to return to the point, Obama clearly has no interest in being the progressive Reagan. He is a Clintonian centrist.
July 2, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is clearly not a Clinton centrist, because they never got a thing done. All Clinton did was hang on and ride the economy for two terms. Obama is a progressive Reagan.
Barack is using a transitional year to help re-frame progressive ideas in a way that conservative voters can get behind.
Have you read his books? Studied the legislation he passed in Illinois and Washington? You don't seem to understand his policy positions and prescriptions if you call him a Clinton centrist.
July 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it doubles from 4 percent to 8 percent (I don't know if those are the numbers that is just an example) that is largest hike in history.
The highest marginal personal tax rate on incomes over 1.2 million a year (top 1% of Americans) was slashed from 75% to 36%. This huge payday for a drastically small percentage of tax payers robbed the federal government of the money used to pay for all its programs for the previous 40 years.
Of course they had to raise the corporate rate to make up for that sudden loss of revenue.
July 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course they had to raise the corporate rate"??? At 2:26 you wrote "He slashed personal tax rates and slashed capital gains and slashed corporate taxes and charged the Cold War to our children's debate account." So he raised the corporate rate while slashing corporate taxes? What are you saying?
July 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan was elected in 1980 and did all those things you quoted. By 1986 he had to raise corporate rates because of short falls in revenue from personal income tax and rising debt/inflation.
That didn't matter though because he allowed business to externalize all their environmental and societal costs through deregulation and to hide profits off-shore and to pump stock price through market manipulation, which meant they made out like bandits even though their tax rate went up.
Many of the same things that happened under Clinton, only with a democratic president and a republican Congress, the opposite of the Reagan era.
July 2, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment