E.J. Dionne writes:
It wasn't all that long ago that Democrats and liberals were said to be out of touch with "the real America," which was defined as encompassing the states that voted for President Bush in 2004, including the entire South. Democrats seemed to accept this definition of reality, and they struggled -- often looking ridiculous in the process -- to become fluent in NASCAR talk and to discuss religion with the inflections of a white Southern evangelicalism foreign to so many of them.
Now the conventional wisdom sees Republicans in danger of becoming merely a Southern regional party. Isn't it amazing how quickly the supposedly "real America" was transformed into a besieged conservative enclave out of touch with the rest of the country? . . . How durable are these changes? In both politics and culture, the side that thinks it's losing usually accommodates itself to the ascendant order. My hunch is that we will be seeing many new claims to moderation and social concern on the right and many fewer fake NASCAR fans on the left.
More.
When we talk about Barack Obama's political rhetoric and style, we are not questioning his heart, mind or commitment to progressive policies. But rather his political approach. We now see Hillary leading McCain and I fear that the wrong lessons will be learned
[T]he recent Newsweek poll showing Hillary up 7 over McCain would also support his view. Personally, I don't buy these polls so far out and do not think Hillary is very electable. But that is the least of it. more so than Obama, I find Hillary's political rhetoric and style an abandonment of the Politics of Contrast (see my posts on the subject for more detail) that I think won Dems the 2006 election and the type of politics that Dems must adopt in the near future in all national elections. To wit, Hillary is BENEFITTING from an improved Dem brand and weakened GOP brand but her style was not part of that success. To adopt it, or Obama's, is to reject success.
Recently, Ezra and Duncan have joined some of us in criticzing Obama's style. And faced harsh, unresponsive criticism as a result. Duncan said:
Obama's triangulation is more rhetorical than real. One can triangulate by picking a Third Way position, or one can triangulate by picking a position and calling it the Third Way and that's what Obama tends to do. See Tomasky's review of his book in the NYRB. It may be dishonest or he may genuinely mean it, and I don't much care. Dishonesty has an honorable place in politics. My problem with triangulation has nothing to do with dishonesty or personal affront - I don't expect politicians to cater to me in their speeches. My problem with triangulation is that it's a way for a man to win an election, but not a way to build a party's brand. It's a short term strategy to benefit an individual, not a long term strategy to increase the size of the tribe.
Except it is NOT a way to win an election, because by destroying your Party brand you lead the way to your own defeat. This, my dear Obama supporters, is why we criticize. Not because we do not respect, even admire Obama. But because we worry about the political style path he is following.