Barack Obama and Party Politics
Back in December I voiced concern that Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric occasionally makes him sound like the ideal Unity08 candidate. I've made clear on this blog that I support and like Obama but I don't want him to fall for the bipartisanship ruse which leads to Washington centrist consensus, something Obama himself has criticized. Today Max Sawicky at TPM Cafe voices similar concerns about Obama's unity message:
Of course big changes tend to get done on a bipartisan basis, and broader support is always worth pursuing. But the changes we need are not all the rage of the political center. Aside from Iraq, the question is how much daylight is there on the substance of policy between Rep. Ford and Senator Obama?...
Too much pragmatism will keep the country stuck where it is now -- prone to precipitous military adventures, diddling with the health insurance industry, upholding homilies about personal responsibility in a labor market where work doesn't pay and individual financial risk worsens.
The feeling I get about Obama is that, free of ideological preconceptions, he thinks he can sit down with contending parties and make deals. When the desperately poor are on one side of the table, this is a praiseworthy endeavor. This is part of Obama's claim to fame, and deservedly so. The problem is that while most any deal you can get will make the poor better off, when it comes to the broad working class, or if you like, "middle class," this is an inadequate approach.
Now, I know that Barack Obama understands the dynamics at play here. He has remarked in the past that governing is easier for Republicans because they are not trying to create legislation that requires large, across-the-aisle coalition building, but rather just need that 51% to get their agenda across (can't find the link to this). I can only assume that he is frighteningly confident of his abilities to reach across party lines and build those coalitions on the basis of his own negotiating skills because the last feature I would ascribe to Republicans is compromise. Conservatism has become an ideology, and most Republicans are proud conservatives (i.e. identity politics). They will not willingly budge on any of their pet issues because they have already arrived at the solution for any given problem. I see no evidence that conservative Republicans possess the "prudence" and "prescription" that Burke spoke of, nor are they practical or pragmatic. They have their solutions, the conversation is over, and with power they will attempt to enact their solutions. How exactly Obama is to "reach out" to these people mystifies me.
It would be nice if we could just elect Republicans who were willing to listen and negotiate, but that's not who the GOP base elects. Democrats have a mirror-image problem: the party is catching up to the base. So while it seems inevitable that better Democrats (that is, more representative of their base) will be elected over the years, the GOP base will become more narrow and doctrinaire and orthodox which will, over time, cost them elections in all but the more gerrymandered districts. They will become, as Tom Schaller noted, a regional party.
I still think Obama has the right campaign style. After all, he is conspicuously trying to build a movement around him that creates the sense of "nonpartisanship" even though most of his ideas are clearly on the left/liberal/progressive side of the equation. I imagine that with the support a public majority Obama believes he will be able to put his ideas into action. And if 2008 is a landslide, he may just do that. But sooner or later he is going to have to clearly link his political successes with the Democratic party for only then will he be in a position to actually claim a popular mandate for the Party and put the opposition in the spotlight. I hope he realizes that negotiation is fine but if the GOP won't budge then they must be forced to accept the popular mandate. Obama's demonstrable political shrewdness to date suggests that he will be willing to take the gloves off if the occasion arises. Until then I think his message of unity is positive, good for the country and the prelude to a formidable primary battle for the Democratic nomination.
I think he understands also that a big part of this all is political capital. Hence how he often disavows the "50 plus 1" electoral strategy. When you have an electoral map close to, say, Reagan's in 1980, its a lot easier to get change enacted than if you come into office like, say, Bush did, losing the popular vote and eaking out a court-mandated electoral college victory based on statistically-insignificant differences in 1 state.
I think that's something that's being missed in the discussion. Part of his argument is that, as someone who appeals to Republican voters (see the recent Iowa poll that put him as the 3rd most popular presidential candidate of Repubs), he can win a national election in a manner that gives him a commanding mandate and the political leverage to pass legislation that other candidates couldn't.
August 15, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Obama, too, and I think a lot of this is a response to the fact that our current pres & congress are constantly at a stalemate (the tug of war between the recent "Iraw withdrawal date" issue was a bit of a joke), more so than ever in quite a while. A president who cannot evoke the consensus of the congress and senate is a much more tangible problem now than it seemed during the last commander-in-chief's reign (who, too, reached across party lines and incorporated a few choice republican items into his agenda). I agree that we need less rhetoric on the issue, but we need to discern between BI-partisan and ANTI-partisan. To me, Obama appeals to GOPer & dem alike because his politics, while decidedly left, appeal to more general common sense and concern. I also confess I signed up for the Unity08 election, which you mentioned, but I did because I feel that fusing both major political parties, or discarding them, might invent a more generally identifiable presidency (like Obama...so your fears may be correct). The point is that to me "bipartisan" suggests pandering to the weaknesses of both sides, whereas "antipartisan" suggests a stripping of political agenda. Obama may be capable of the latter, but then I'm even more guilty of idealism as he is...
August 15, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect Max is confusing two distinct ideas: reaching "across the aisle" and reaching out to voters. The first is compromise with Republicans no policy as a political tactic. That might work on some issues; apparently people with as reliable liberal credentials as Edwards and Kennedy have thought so when it came, respectively, to the first's health care proposal including room for private insurer's or the second's immigration bill. I'll leave it to other contexts to debate those specific issues, but you see what I mean. Mostly, however, the GOP intransigance has made compromise less than helpful, as with Iraq, FISA, and so on. Liberals are not unwarranted in condemning it.
The second, however, is different. Some voters don't necessarily have strong party affiliations, and many more hate Washington period, as evidenced by poll negatives for Congress as well as Bush. They're no doubt happy to hear someone is going to reach out to them, heal their perceived wounds, and so on. Even the country's center is generally more liberal than Washington, too, when it comes to specific policies. Blacks, while knowing that racism and class divisions in America are real and while voting against Bush by more than 4 to 1, still could use something to hope for, and so I doubt they're alienated by broad messages of hope. Dean recognized all that when he talked of reaching out to the guy in the pickup truck, and while he got slammed for it, it became his 50-state strategy, which is working.
In sum, we don't have to complain about rhetoric that might be misconstrued as compromise if it's really building the basis for future hegemony. Heck, it worked for Reagan and, briefly, for a certain (aaggh!) "compassionate conservative."
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
August 16, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in someone else's comments, I think there's more to Obama than the typical, know-nothing Broderism.
The distinction between Republican voters and Republican politicians is critically important. Pretty much everything bad about Republicans applies to politicians. Republican voters are my friends and neighbors who basically think the government's a joke and don't like paying taxes.
So I guess I'll have to start saying elected Republicans make it hard for good people to have an honest difference of opinion, because they are neither.
August 16, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly Obama is to "reach out" to these people mystifies me.
What would be really interesting is if someone (had the nerve) to run on a platform of partisanship.
"I promise not to work with Republicans. To do what we want to do, we need to sweep the House and sweep the Senate. Are you with me!!!???!!!"
Or, something like that. I'm not a campaign speech writer.
But if someone ran on a platform of "compromise as a last resort," that would certainly be an interesting experiment.
And if ever you could do it, it would be now. It's pretty clear how little the Republicans wanted to compromise with Democrats.
Maybe this is all a bit silly....
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
August 16, 2007 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your "what if" is fun, but likely to be counter productive.
I'm all for Democrats acting as Democrats. With the DlC's influence diminished there is still far too much DLC inflence in the party. There is still to much a bipartisan legislative approach in the Democratically led Congress.
BUT, the voting public is yet divided into three major blocks (D's R's and I's), not two. What is being suggested here is bound to look bad to most I's.
In the game being played here, the idea is to put the best foot forward. And, what's wrong with imagining that, given a different climate, there might well be some elected Republicans who might want to work with a Democratic government? In that case, it would be right to be gracious.
Being truthful, why not play that up and play down the "we know how to play hardball" theme. Which I would hope would be the alternative, sbould the opposition remain confrontative. While open to both approaches, it would not be dishonest if you choose to emphasize the more harmonious approach.
This kind of public approach was exactly what gave the "compassionate conservative" much of his appeal in 2000. The problem was, and is, it's been all bullshit. No democracy at all, just an imperial power grab, a rush to the right based in fear and divisiveness.
The problem is, how to balance all of this while helping to put the Bush imperial power grab into proper public perspective.
P.S. cscs's comments and posts are always though provoking, the kind of thing the cafe needs.
Kevin Russell Cook
August 19, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I just hope Obama is as smart as you think he is, and all this "bi-partisanship" is a strategy, and not a caving to the Republican worldview.
August 16, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Obama's marked an "audacious" course hasn't he? Right in the middle of the backwash of the most divisive political decade(+), Obama's message is unity. In fact, "don't demonize the opposition" was a major message at last weekend's Camp Obama, but I am here to testify that the folks that spent 35 hours over the last weekend were anything BUT passive, milquetoast types.
Therein lies another challenge for Obama - to show he is decisive not divisive ...(ooo aliterative!?!).
Note that Hillary gets it. Referring to yesterday's Camp Clinton swipe at Obama for his audacity to bring up her 50%+ negatives
August 16, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tossing coins (paper, really) at both Edwards and Obama currently, and I'd be happy with one or the other. Probably a little happier with Obama just for what his election would mean about how far the country has come from the early 60's when blacks couldn't vote safely in so much of the country.
The thing I'm struck with in this quote is the question "which" Democratic party? If Democrats all looked like Bernie Sanders (Independent) I'd be happy. If Democrats all looked like Joe Lieberman (Independent "democrat") I'd go nuts and finish out my years playing scrabble.
If I were to have my druthers, I'd rather have Obama win a landslide and then have the Democratic party link to his political successes. It's happened before, and if this year turns out to be a watershed, I think the winner is going to shape reality for both parties.
aMike
August 16, 2007 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton SPECIFICALLY talk about what they will actually do to unite the country (which I think also includes moderates, Independents, and disillusioned Republicans as well as Democrats):
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13072
ANALYSIS: Obama saying he can unite the country 'more effectively' than Hillary!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 21, 2007 - 2:09am.
Most people in the country are NOT happy right now with Democrats and Republicans which I think can set up Unity08 and/or some other credible third party ticket to seriously talk about uniting the country if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are the 2008 Democratic nominee and if they continue to avoid specifically talking about what they will do to unite the country:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=345
A Summer of Discontent with Washington
Released: August 2, 2007
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12134
ANALYSIS: Why I think that a serious third party campaign might win in 2008!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 17, 2007 - 4:50pm.
Most people in the country ("the forgotten middle" and "new silent majority" talked about in this article) want to see the country united and they actually hunger for that to happen:
http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=28693
A Fractured America?
Red State, Blue State. So the media says. But is our country really that divided?
By William Beaman, From Reader's Digest, November 2005
"So the sexy story may be that there's an all-out war between red and blue, but the bigger news is about the forgotten middle. These centrists lack power and influence, but they've got the numbers. Put another way, America has spawned a new silent majority."
No President in my opinion, regardless of party, can EFFECTIVELY govern if about half of the country absolutely hates their guts (just like how they do with Bush right now). That is why this issue is so important and is also why it has to be seriously addressed in the national dialogue as soon as possible!
August 21, 2007 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The conclusion at Culturevital is that Obama is all about crafting win-win deals with government leaders around the world, as well as leaders at home. That's good. In a world that's growing increasingly more dangerous, America needs someone who can anticipate and response with leadership to the diverse perspectives and needs of difference interest groups, communities, and countries. The future now belong to those who are the most strategic, commucative, and well-balanced in their dealings with the world. Visit www.freewebs.com/culturevital
August 21, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink