Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama: Bean-bag or judo?

By

I don't mean to hijack the discussion going on on David Eisenthal's Obama-endorsement thread, but I'd like to state what I'm sure I *don't* know.

It is possible, I think, to acknowledge the concerns of conservatives, libertarians and other Differently-Winged folks while still advancing one's own ideas and agenda. I do think it's possible to bring people into the conversation; in fact, it strikes me as an absolutely essential political skill. That is, unless you prefer a pure Rovian style in which you slash the public down the middle and hope you end up with 51% — or less. Does anyone think that taxes (for instance) really aren't something we should be concerned about at all? Illegal immigration? Terrorism?

Furthermore, the power of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will be brought to bear against whomever the eventual nominee and (I believe) President will be. I can very easily imagine a scenario in which the most combative of the candidates — John Edwards — would be isolated and brought to weakness by the power of special interests over Congress. Does he plan to smash the power of K Street all by his lonesome? How does that work, exactly? What's the mechanism?

As for Hillary, that last quoted paragraph from this comment about right-wing howling and a mindless, easily-led press corps — sounds a lot like the Clinton administration right on through to Gore 2000. I've been depressed by her campaign's willingness to duke it out and be aggressive on the picayune stuff, while caving to conservative ideas on grand matters of vision and strategy. (Speaking of picayune, that also goes for the Lilliputian warriors in Obama's camp.)

Anyway, I don't have enough evidence that Obama is the type to cave when the pressure comes, as come it will. His record in the legislature is mixed on that account … but legislative records are always mixed. For instance, was cutting the insurers into an Illinois health care bill a good idea — i.e. did it result in people getting health care — or was it a cave under the circumstances? Only people who are really knowledgable about the negotiations and Illinois politics would know.

So I'm just not convinced either way. Obama's language of transcendence could put him in a better position to create change, by claiming the high ground of tone and purpose; or he could set himself up for unprincipled compromise.

And this question is why I still haven't made a decision as to whom to support. By New Year's, I'll say something, but it's likely to be highly qualified either way.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. is that while Barack Obama did start out being liberal and progressive, he definitely back-pedaled on such things as the funding for our continued war in Iraq, for instance.  In affect, yes, he did cave in, like Hillary before  him, on this particular issue.

  2. The Republican debates lately have been notable for their avoiding mention of President Bush. The 2008 elections hold out the promise of being a realigning election, one in which conservatism as an approach loses all its luster.  Just as Democrats after Reagan’s victory were very shy about embracing liberalism (“the L-word”), an aggressive Democratic campaign can connect the dots from Republican deregulation efforts to the housing crisis, from Republican denigration of government to Katrina, from Republican worship of corporations to corruption, and from Republican boneheaded jingoism to Iraq. Such a campaign can create a political climate of timidity on the other side.

    <

    p>In the current environment, Republicans still have remarkable institutional advantages and display remarkable unity around failed and unpopular agendas. They are still not eager to compromise.

    <

    p>If individual Republicans compromise, they risk their institutional backing. We have to make it so that if they don’t compromise, they risk their electoral backing.

    • The idea that this election will show that, “conservatism as an approach loses all its luster,” is wishful thinking (fervently though we wish it!). That’s terrific that the Republicans are unable to compromise. It’s a big part of the reason why they lost control of the Congress. Let them be the extremists. Progressives can hold the sensible center. That’s the way to win a majority — assuming a competent national campaign and a candidate capable of articulating a coherent, pragmatic platform.  

      • Even conventional wisdom holds that Republicans lost Congress because of Iraq, corruption, and New Orleans — not due to extremism. They’ve been extremists since 1994.

        <

        p>By “sensible center” do you mean some concrete policy difference or rhetorical difference.

        The 2008 election is shaping up to be a rout. The last fundraising reports showed Edwards (!) with as much cash on hand as the top two Republicans together. Republicans are behind in House and Senate fundraising. They have many more seats to defend. Republicans are resigning left and right. Even next door at RMG, D.R.Tucker worries that conservatism will lose its luster. Since when did we expect that both Senators from Virginia would end up being Democrats or that Republicans have argued that they should give up on Sununu since he’s so far behind.

        <

        p>This election represents enormous opportunity for Democrats. We can seize it aggressively. Or we can try very hard to be sensible people like President Dukakis.

        • has gone way, way beyond ordinary, old-fashioned Conservativism.  It’s become much more radical.  Hence the name  Radical Right.  

Archives