When I says Democratic, I mean as in a Democratic political partisan, prepared to fight the political battles for his Party. I have written on this before, but Gary Hart's review of Obama's book gives me a new excuse:
Truly great leaders possess a strategic sense, an inherent understanding of how the framework of their thinking and the tides of the times fit together and how their nation’s powers should be applied to achieve its large purposes. "The Audacity of Hope" is missing that strategic sense. Perhaps the senator should address this in his next book. By doing so, he would most certainly propel himself into the country’s small pantheon of leaders in a way that personal narrative and sudden fame cannot.
I think the strategic POLITICAL sense is what Hart should be referring to, though I am not at all sure he is. More.
Hart writes:
Confessing guilt at being "insufficiently balanced" in his political views — "I am a Democrat, after all" — Obama insists that "government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all"; he also believes in "the free market, competition and entrepreneurship." He suspects that some of his views — his open-mindedness on social issues, for example, combined with economic traditionalism — will cause him trouble. His relative newness on the political scene, he admits, will also cause him to be seen as a "blank screen" on which a variety of people will project their own views, but he then quickly acknowledges that he must "avoid the pitfalls of fame."
Assuming Hart is properly characterizing Obama's expressions, what does he mean "insufficiently balanced?" This is trivial, yet revealing. Does Obama not believe he has the right answers for the problems we face? Does he NOT believe Democrats do? Will it be difficult for him to say Dems do and the GOP does not?
Hart cuts to the core in this paragraph:
Obama thinks Democrats have been "wrong to run away from a debate about values," though exactly who has been guilty of running away is not made clear, and his correct definition of values — "the standards and principles that the majority of Americans deem important in their lives, and in the life of the country" — is hardly what the evangelical polemicists who have hijacked the traditional Republican Party have in mind. He is particularly evocative on the issue of ideological inconsistency, blaming liberals for demanding civil liberties but not deregulation and conservatives for wanting deregulation of markets but encouraging wiretapping. "Values," Obama writes, "are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question."
What Obama appears to be to me is insufficiently Democratic and willing to be partisan. He is, after all, a politician, hoping to be the Party's standardbearer. If he can not say that he is sure Democrats have the better answers, then who else will if he leads our Party?
Obama has chosen to be a politician in a country where one of two parties govern. he has chosen to be a Democrat. If he wants his Party's VALUES and PRINCIPLES to define the governance of our country then he better start being a politician, not just a rock star.
It is important for having a governing majority in Congress, something he would want if he becomes President. But also if he wants to be President at all, for there is nothing more important for ANY Dem Presidential candidate than that Dems have a strong Party brand. That drives voter behavior more than anything else.
If Obama wants to lead the Democratic Party, then he will have to realize that part of the job requirement is being a Democratic politician. Being Democratic enough.
That is the question Barack Obama has to answer.