Comment on The Field, 3/29/08 - http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=962
Nothing builds (or rebuilds) the appeal of a political candidate more than having a superior public argument in the thick of a campaign. Barack Obama may not survive Hillary Clinton in shape to win in November, unless she is forced out by one or two decisive Obama victories soon, and that won't happen unless he makes a fresh, commanding argument at this point in the campaign.
None of his people should be lulled into any sense of inevitability just because the pundits are now saying she is highly unlikely to win. He can't wait for party bigwigs to pull her offstage. He has to take this nomination by main force. To do that, he needs to make a new argument, which is consistent with his innate identity as a powerful voice for change and as a personal harbinger of it.
Because Obama has had a good two weeks now tactically -- thanks to the Philadelphia speech which pretty much got the Wright affair behind him, the Richardson endorsement, and now the endorsement by Senator Casey of Pennnsylvania -- Obama can afford to go on the offense. And he should, or else he'll find himself in the final weeks before Pennsylvania responding to more Hillary attacks. But if he succumbs to the conventional wisdom about the politics of this primary and tries, tactically, to outbid Hillary on economic issues of concern to the white working-class, it won't work: The perception of her strength on that has hardened in the media, and that reinforces the general perception that she's a fighter for them -- which they now appear to believe.
It would be harder for Obama to dislodge that perception, than to jump over it and drive home another issue as decisive -- an issue on which he's perceived as naturally stronger. He has enough media money and enough free media to give visibility to any issue he wants to. But it has to be an issue that dovetails with the cumulative, valid, existing perceptions about what motivates him -- and that issue is this: fundamentally changing a broken political system.
Here's the strategic logic behind why this could translate into fresh new victories in the upcoming states. The white working class is indeed worried about losing jobs and now also worried about either losing their homes or losing sufficient resale value to have enough for retirement. But Obama cannot win a bidding war with Clinton by promising to apply more money to these problems, because he will never top her on pandering to those fears. And if he tries, he will rob himself of the comparative advantage that makes him far more appealing to independents than another redistributionist Democrat.
He must change the way that economic issues are perceived by asking why the economy has been brought to the precipice. And the answer is that the political system has been sold to the highest bidders, which has shifted opportunities away from those who work for a living, to those who can afford to buy access to politicians in Washington. It's not that factory workers can't be productive or don't have the capacity to compete. It's that the tax system and the mortgage finance system and the regulatory system have been mismanaged or corrupted by the way our political system has been rigged.
So changing the impact of the economy on working-class people in Johnstown or Scranton or Bethlehem or Allentown has to start with changing politics in Washington. And then Obama could say: "Let me tell you something that my opponent cannot: No one owns me -- just look at my tax returns. And I don't owe anything to anybody who profits unfairly from what goes on in Washington. I hate that system as much as you do. And if I do nothing else when I get to the White House, I promise that I will change it. It's time not only for equal economic treatment in America, it's time for equal political treatment -- because we will never fix our economy once and for all, unless we fix our political system once and for all. And we can't do that, without someone completely new in the White House."
This is an argument that renders Clinton's language and indeed the premise of her candidacy obsolete. It overrides any constituency-based appeals based on promising more breaks or programs or benefits. People have heard those appeals for election after election after election. They know that politicians promise to do more, and then they don't. The reason they don't is simple: The political system no longer works for ordinary Americans. And that's what Obama can change, and Clinton won't.
If he makes this kind of argument, and makes it passionately, he has a legitimate chance to win in Pennsylvania and will almost certainly win decisively in North Carolina and Indiana -- and thereby end the contest for the nomination.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Obama as the Voice of Public Reason
Comment on The Huffington Post, 3/22/08 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/why-am-i-so-afraid_b_92876.html
If Erica Jong doesn't know why she is "so afraid" of what is happening in this election year, she shouldn't be pop-psychoanalyzing a serious, fearless political figure like Barack Obama. To call this man a "stallion...drunk on his own rhetoric" is not only completely inconsistent with Obama's public demeanor, which is consistently cool and self-controlled, it is personally demeaning. Ms. Jong seems to have no realization that the language of presidential candidates conveys the argument of their propositions to the nation, about why people should follow their leadership, and in that sense all "rhetoric" should be powerful if it is going to be effective in a democracy. Rhetoric is not merely "words", as Senator Clinton constantly suggests. It is at the heart of functioning self-government, because without a sensible analysis of the current predicament and a vision of tomorrow offered to those who vote, the nation's decision-making about the future cannot be rational. "Rhetoric" is the vehicle of public reason, and Senator Obama is modeling the use of such reason as no other presidential candidate has done since Franklin Roosevelt. That is why he is headed toward his party's nomination.
If Erica Jong doesn't know why she is "so afraid" of what is happening in this election year, she shouldn't be pop-psychoanalyzing a serious, fearless political figure like Barack Obama. To call this man a "stallion...drunk on his own rhetoric" is not only completely inconsistent with Obama's public demeanor, which is consistently cool and self-controlled, it is personally demeaning. Ms. Jong seems to have no realization that the language of presidential candidates conveys the argument of their propositions to the nation, about why people should follow their leadership, and in that sense all "rhetoric" should be powerful if it is going to be effective in a democracy. Rhetoric is not merely "words", as Senator Clinton constantly suggests. It is at the heart of functioning self-government, because without a sensible analysis of the current predicament and a vision of tomorrow offered to those who vote, the nation's decision-making about the future cannot be rational. "Rhetoric" is the vehicle of public reason, and Senator Obama is modeling the use of such reason as no other presidential candidate has done since Franklin Roosevelt. That is why he is headed toward his party's nomination.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Buckley the Dissident
Comment on The Huffington Post, 3/12/08, Reply to "Ira Glasser Remembers William F. Buckley, Jr." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glasser/ira-glasser-remembers-wil_b_91175.html
As Ira Glasser attests, William F. Buckley, Jr., was the kind of conservative who liberals could like -- not only because he was personally gracious, but because unlike many on the right, he actually listened to those he was debating. He did that because he relished ideas, he respected democracy, and he distrusted conventional wisdom.
In the 1960s, I had read "Up From Liberalism," Buckley's book that challenged liberal orthodoxy. As a young student who had done precinct work for Republicans but probably couldn’t tell you why – other than loyalty to my family’s political roots – Buckley spoke like lightning to my fatigue with all the stereotyped arguments of the era.
Then I plunged into the intellectual crises of the ‘60s with my Baby Boomer friends. One thing I couldn’t do, however, was fall in line with the gung-ho, pro-Vietnam War enthusiasm of many conservatives. I was appalled at their cavalier disregard for the costs of that war, as I am today about the Iraq misadventure. When Republicans fell into line with Richard Nixon in ’68 – a man whose campaign that year was philosophically inert and substantively disingenuous -- I realized that the party's establishment would swallow and digest any idea or leader, so long as elections were won and the system didn’t change. By ’72 I was for McGovern, because at least he “spoke truth to power”, as Buckley had in the ‘50s. And I never looked back -- still preferring maverick outsiders like Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, because they too challenged the group-think of those who were inured to the system as it was.
I only saw Bill Buckley in person once -- at a 2003 conference and celebration of the life and work of the late Malcolm Muggeridge, the great British journalist and television host. Muggeridge had reported from Stalin's Russia, edited "Punch", and was the man who'd brought Mother Theresa to the world's attention, through the BBC. Like Buckley, Muggeridge was an entertaining raconteur, a foe of the reigning establishment of his youth -- and also a thoughtful, tolerant Christian. Like Muggeridge, who was his friend, Buckley was a bit of a rebel, a bit of a knave, and loved the friendly clash of ideas. He was a natural dissident with a dash of dry sherry, topped up with cackling good humor. He was a good man.
As Ira Glasser attests, William F. Buckley, Jr., was the kind of conservative who liberals could like -- not only because he was personally gracious, but because unlike many on the right, he actually listened to those he was debating. He did that because he relished ideas, he respected democracy, and he distrusted conventional wisdom.
In the 1960s, I had read "Up From Liberalism," Buckley's book that challenged liberal orthodoxy. As a young student who had done precinct work for Republicans but probably couldn’t tell you why – other than loyalty to my family’s political roots – Buckley spoke like lightning to my fatigue with all the stereotyped arguments of the era.
Then I plunged into the intellectual crises of the ‘60s with my Baby Boomer friends. One thing I couldn’t do, however, was fall in line with the gung-ho, pro-Vietnam War enthusiasm of many conservatives. I was appalled at their cavalier disregard for the costs of that war, as I am today about the Iraq misadventure. When Republicans fell into line with Richard Nixon in ’68 – a man whose campaign that year was philosophically inert and substantively disingenuous -- I realized that the party's establishment would swallow and digest any idea or leader, so long as elections were won and the system didn’t change. By ’72 I was for McGovern, because at least he “spoke truth to power”, as Buckley had in the ‘50s. And I never looked back -- still preferring maverick outsiders like Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, because they too challenged the group-think of those who were inured to the system as it was.
I only saw Bill Buckley in person once -- at a 2003 conference and celebration of the life and work of the late Malcolm Muggeridge, the great British journalist and television host. Muggeridge had reported from Stalin's Russia, edited "Punch", and was the man who'd brought Mother Theresa to the world's attention, through the BBC. Like Buckley, Muggeridge was an entertaining raconteur, a foe of the reigning establishment of his youth -- and also a thoughtful, tolerant Christian. Like Muggeridge, who was his friend, Buckley was a bit of a rebel, a bit of a knave, and loved the friendly clash of ideas. He was a natural dissident with a dash of dry sherry, topped up with cackling good humor. He was a good man.
Monday, March 10, 2008
A Foreign Trip for Obama? Not now....
Comment on The Field [edited], 3/10/08 - http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=870#comments
A foreign trip by Obama before the Pennsylvania primary (which is now rumored) would be a disastrous idea: First, it would appear to many as if he were conceding that he didn’t have enough foreign policy experience, and were doing a last-minute, cram-for-the-exam trip. Second, it would concede Pennsylvania to Clinton, and friends, Pennsylvania is NOT Ohio. Philadelphia is Atlanta, which Obama won decisively: a huge African-American core population, surrounded by well-educated, upscale white suburbs. Pittsburgh has a blue-collar image, but has been strikingly prosperous in the last decade. The rest of the state is socially not unlike parts of Wisconsin or Iowa, in which Obama did quite well. Third, a foreign trip would be reported by the media as if it were either a stunt or a rock-star tour. Neither image has anything to do with the issues faced by hard-working Americans who are staring into the abyss of a financial collapse. Fourth, Hillary would barrel through Pennsylvania, channeling John Edwards, asking “Where’s Barack? Why isn’t he here, answering your questions and listening to your problems?” She’d be on the scene, and he’d be AWOL from American democracy in action — that’s how it would be spun. Fifth, remember, it’s about delegates. Every one in Pennsylvania counts.
What Obama has to do is stay home, reframe the election, and refreshen our sense of what he stands for -- this way: “What kind of government are we going to have? A government of, by and for the special interests? A government in which the oil industry writes energy legislation and drug companies write health care laws? A government run by people who make negative attacks and refuse to release their tax returns? And how do we change government? Certainly not by returning to the past, by asking those who already had their chance to come back again and try one more time. No, it’s time to change the way we do government in America, and that can only be done by making a clean break from the past, from all those who are comfortable with Washington and have benefited from business as usual. It is not merely time for a change. It is time to remake our government altogether, in the image and in the interests of those who’ve been left out. This election is for you — the ones whose voices have been ignored, and whose votes have been taken for granted, and who were promised prosperity but instead got war and recession. The incompetence, the dishonesty, the negative attacks, the stranglehold of money on our government: All that comes to an end, when I walk through the front door of the White House, and take its power, and use it for you…”
Sunday, March 9, 2008
About the calls for unity in the Democratic race...
High-minded calls for unity coming from Mrs. Clinton's supporters or Democratic big-wigs, now that many assume she will win the Pennsylvania primary and therefore the nomination, are only thinly veiled attempts to end the contest before all voters have been heard from or to distract us from this reality: The cause of bitter division within Democratic ranks at this point is Hillary Clinton, whose continuing distortions of Senator Obama's record and whose mocking and denigration of his speeches and experience have far exceeded the level of negative politics in any previous race for the Democratic nomination in the modern period. If she is nominated, and if Obama supporters sit on their hands in the fall, it is because they'll have reached the conclusion that someone capable of such disingenuous accusations and derogatory campaign tactics shouldn't be president. If she is nominated after this kind of campaign, she will have only herself to blame if the party cannot be unified. So the first precondition of unity is an end to Mrs. Clinton's attacks.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Obama v. Clinton: The Right Kind of Critical Campaign
Comment on The Daily Kos, 3/8/08 [edited] - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/11633/01082/747/472168
There has been a tide of advice to Barack Obama about what he should emphasize from now until the Pennsylvania primary. But now is the time to focus voters' minds on questions that frame the entire election, in a way that favors him and disadvantages his opponent.
To anyone not programmed to believe everything she says, Mrs. Clinton's behavior has lately been over the top, distorting Obama's record and belittling his eloquence. Since the means you use affect the ends you get, it's likely that this is how she would govern -- denouncing those who get in her way, and twisting and belaboring every point in order to drown out other voices. "She will wear a great nation down," Peggy Noonan has aptly predicted. And in Washington or anywhere else, you don't make problems easier to solve by poisoning the atmosphere in which problems are discussed.
Since Obama stands for changing the way we do politics, he's obligated to make this a major issue -- and it can win the nomination race for him. He can simply say: High-spin, take-no-prisoners politics damages our democracy. It substitutes noise for reason, and accusations for arguments. Distracting and dividing the people is how Bush has governed. Is that what we need more of?
One example: the Clintons' dragging their feet on releasing their income tax returns means they don't want to be held easily accountable for who owes them and who owns them -- and we cannot change politics unless we have leaders who are accountable.
Summing it all up, he could say: Aren't we all sick of the system in Washington? How much longer do we have to wait, to have a president who believes that too? We presume to preach democracy to everyone else in the world, while refusing to make it rational and honest in America. We say we are patriotic, but patriotism means insisting that we have the kind of government that's worth our patriotism.
This would turn the dross of Clinton's attacks into the gold of a higher purpose for Obama, by calling voters to the cause of regenerating our democracy -- and rejecting Clinton's tactics of stooping to conquer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)