Obama For America. That's the official name of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Just three words, but they sum up an entire political philosophy. John Edwards For President. Hillary For President. Obama For America.
Today is the second of three essays on what Obama For America signifies. In Part I, posted yesterday, I showed how Obama For America lives and breathes a 50 State Strategy, unheard of in a primary campaign.
Today I will analyze Obama For America as a governing philosophy - how it permeates Barack Obama's approach to policy and leadership. Obama For America as governance has two key components: maximizing stakeholder participation while maximizing citizen engagement. These principles align Obama with an emerging social entrepreneur model that may be the future of progressive politics.
Part III, tomorrow, will complete the series by analyzing Obama For America as political framing, and why it can both win elections and grow the Democratic Party.
Why Barack Obama for President? Because he is running For America. Because his campaign holds the potential for a national, long term, progressive realignment.
This series of essays are my answer to the question "Why Barack Obama?" The answer - because he is running For America.
What does Obama For America signify? I can think of at least three critical ways that Obama is campaigning For America, and not just For President. First, Obama For America is the true heir of the 50 State Strategy - a national and inclusive campaign that springs from Obama's own personal political philosophy. Second, Obama For America represents a new way of governing on behalf of the nation as a whole - open, transparent, democratic and keenly attentive to the public good. And third, Obama For America means framing progressive values as fundamentally American, reclaiming a lost part of our national identity as the key first step to a broader political coalition in support of activist government. All three of these aspects of the campaign will move us toward progressive realignment, and truly differentiate Obama from the others.
This conversation is aimed at those who have not made a final decision about their candidates - if you truly believe someone else is the right choice for the Democrats, best of luck to you. And perhaps we will talk again after Iowa and New Hampshire.
In yesterday's essay, I looked at Obama For America as a map-changing electoral strategy. When Barack Obama famously challenged the red state/blue state dichotomy in his 2004 Democratic Convention address, it was appealing rhetoric. Now we know it is more than just words. Obama for America is running a bold national electoral strategy right out of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy playbook - a strategy that is good for Obama, good for the Democratic Party and good for progressive politics:
By rejecting the idea of a clear dichotomy between "red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats" Obama firmly aligned himself with an authentically netroots vision - Democrats can and should run anywhere. Many of us on this site believe passionately in the DNC's so-called "50 State Strategy" - the idea that the Democratic Party needs to be everywhere, contesting elections in every state, red or blue. The swing state strategy, the win Ohio and Florida, the try to get to 51% math, the concentrate all your forces on a few key swing districts and concede the rest in advance to the Republicans -- that strategy may get us an election or two. But it won't grow the party and it may cost us dearly down the road.
Today I examine Obama For America as a new approach to governing, one that represents a radical break with the recent past and a return to an authentic progressive politics. It focuses on maximizing stakeholder participation while also maximizing citizen engagement. Obama's policy proposals follow this model clearly, and where his policies differ from his rivals, it is frequently because he is carrying out these ideals. This governance model is the most controversial aspect of Obama's candidacy, but to me it is one of the most inspiring. It also may be why he appeals so strongly to the post-Boomer generations.
Maximizing Stakeholder Participation. First, Barack Obama believes that government policymaking should maximize stakeholder participation. His well-known work getting a progressive criminal justice reform bill through the Illinois legislature epitomizes this approach. The details can be found in a recent AP story:
While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state's notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded.
***
"Without Barack's energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place," said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.
***
A proposal to require that police record interrogations of murder suspects was opposed by police, prosecutors and the Democratic governor and considered so touchy it was separated from other legislation. It also was the issue that garnered Obama's special interest.
"I thought the prosecutors and law enforcement would kill it," said Peter Baroni, who was then a Republican aide to the Illinois Senate's judiciary committee. "He (Obama) was the one who kept people at the table."
In the end, police organizations supported the recording mandate, and the measure passed the Senate unanimously.
In other words, faced with a highly controversial issue, where powerful political interests opposed his preferred outcome, he didn't tell them they were wrong or try to pass the bill over their objections. He knew they had the power to "kill it." So he brought them into the process. He listened to their objections and dealt with them. And the bill passed unanimously.
Obama believes that everyone gets a voice, whether you like them or agree with them or not. (Apparently this even extends to law students at the University of Chicago.) And this is a matter of principle that he is consistent about. You can't like his foreign policy views on favoring diplomacy over aggression without also having to accept his views about a "seat at the table" on domestic issues. And you can't reject those views and then complain when the Republicans freeze us out of everything. I believe America has had enough of "my way or the high way" politics. Obama's approach to governance is inclusive - For America. He thinks government has an obligation to serve America as a whole and that it does best when it keeps that goal foremost in mind. That may give rights and voice to parts of America we don't like. But the alternative is that whoever is in power at the time sets the rules and makes exclusions.
Inclusion has historically been a way to get progressive change. As Jonathan Alter explains, FDR did not impose the New Deal, he achieved it through tough compromise:
[Some] believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded by being a polarizing figure. I studied FDR for four years while writing a book about him, and this is simply untrue. It's also untrue of other successful Democratic presidents and for a simple reason: "Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in policy-making.
Bear with me for a brief history lesson: The so-called "First New Deal" of 1933-34 came after Roosevelt won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in a campaign devoid of any populist message despite an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent. First, FDR worked with Hoover treasury officials from the other party to rescue the banks under a conservative plan that included steep budget cuts. The rest of his famous "100 days" agenda-which included unprecedented jobs programs, agricultural reform, labor rights, and regulation of financial markets—was achieved with much more compromise than Krugman recognizes. Social Security came in 1935 after a big Democratic mandate in midterm elections and was enacted piecemeal and cooperatively (to the disappointment of many New Deal liberals) with everyone at the table.
This approach certainly has risks. It will not always work. Yet attempting to impose substantial policy change on resistant stakeholders also carries huge risks. And Obama has proven that you can give your opponents a seat at the table and still get a progressive outcome. But there is a reason this works, and it has to do with the second key point - maximizing citizen engagement.
Many of Obama's best-known accomplishments involve maximizing citizen engagement in politics. From the new Obama-Coburn Watchdog Database, to campaign finance reform, to his proposal to essentially put the federal government's business on the web in real time, he has always placed a premium on reforms that increase citizen involvement and engagement. Even some of his critics recognize his leadership and innovation on this score.
Citizen participation is the check and balance on keeping big powerful economic interests from running the show. Obama isn't afraid of having them at the table as long as all of us are watching over his shoulder. It is the ability to manipulate policy in secret that gives them so much power. As he frequently says on the campaign trail:
"When it comes to what is wrong with America, the American people are not the problem. They are the answer."
Again, the theme of Obama for America comes through. It is our government and we need to reclaim it.
Describing one of his speeches in San Francisco, I noted how he asked us directly to partner with him and become politically engaged:
It is "time to find our stake in each other" and "reach out for a common destiny. The American people are "ready for sacrifice. . . honest and integrity" . . . . "I will ask you to be involved in your democracy again" and this is a difficult challenge. . . . The idea that I am my brother's keeper/I am my sister's keeper "must express itself through our government." . . . "We are here to transform our nation". . . ."We can be the last best hope again"
In his focus on orienting the process toward citizen engagement, Obama is once again standing For America. He is also channeling the Social Entrepreneur model of government.
The Social Entrepreneur Model
Understanding the radicalism inherent in this philosophy requires thinking of Obama as the first "Social Entrepreneur" President. Some of the most exciting social justice activism today departs from a traditional nonprofit model toward a so-called "social entrepreneur" model, one that focuses on innovative approaches to achieving socially beneficial ends. This framework takes what market-based approaches do best, which is foster creativity and invention, and turn it to socially responsible ends.
"Social entrepreneurs identify resources where people only see problems. They view the villagers as the solution, not the passive beneficiary. They begin with the assumption of competence and unleash resources in the communities they're serving."
David Bornstein, author of How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas
Think about microlending, the Echoing Green program, social marketing, and many more examples.
Perhaps the best-known social entreprenuer organization is Ashoka, which describes the movement this way:
We are in the midst of a rare, fundamental structural change in society: citizens and citizen groups are beginning to operate with the same entrepreneurial and competitive skill that has driven business ahead over the last three centuries. People all around the world are no longer sitting passively idle; they are beginning to see that change can happen and that they can make it happen. The result of this transformation will ultimately be a world where all individuals will be able to spot challenges, address them, and improve their lives. Rather than a tiny percentage of the world controlling the wealth and making the decisions that effect our lives, every individual will be empowered to determine his or her own future.
Indeed, Obama's widely praised new National Service Planhas an explicit social entepreneurship function.
What's the core of the model? Participation. Sounds an awful lot like the approach of a candidate who has blown the roof off of small donor fundraising and volunteeer-based campaigning strategies. Sounds a lot like a candidate who will "ask us to be involved in our government again." For Obama, we are not passive beneficiaries of policy. He will make the Washington policymaking space more open to our involvement than it has every been, but it will be up to us to come in and fight for the change we want. If we don't step up to the plate, he won't impose something on our behalf. Because he knows that kind of top-down approach is doomed to failure.
When Barack Obama talks about "change we can believe in" he means this active engagement with the world. He means that we can make it happen.
Obama also talks about beyond the "same old fights" and people assume he means the culture war over social issues. But I think he's really talking about the culture war between markets and government. The fight he wants to get beyond is the one that started with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and still continues -- the war over cutting taxes and eliminating much of the regulatory work of our government. Obama's pragmatic and social entreprenurial policy vision understands government and regulation must play a powerful role, but also that markets do some things very well if turned to the right ends. It favors transparency, participation, innovation and engagement. Instead of just particular policy proposals, it moves us toward a system where progressive policy initiatives can succeed. And it requires us to be part of making the change we seek. This policy model is the future of the Democratic Party. It is a powerful and novel vision we could offer that can draw broad support. It is the intellectual basis for political realignment.
As I said yesterday,
Shortly we will begin choosing our nominee, and I sense that this moment has profound implications for our nation and the progressive movement. This is the kind of event we will look back on. How will we feel about our choice four, eight, twenty years from now. Will we be proud of who we voted for or campaigned for? Will we stand on the right or wrong side of history?
Obama, Clinton and Edwards give us very different reasons to support them. Clinton wants to work the system - she says she has the experience and the political skills to navigate the world we have lived. Edwards wants to fight the system - he says he has the ideas and commitment to challenge the world on its current terms. Obama gives us something very different - he wants to change the system. He wants to revisit first principles, to rewrite the rules of the game, and to build political institutions that fundamentally favor progressives.
We see these different approaches in their electoral strategies - only one is truly For America in 50 state scope. We see these differences in their approach to governance - only one is For America defined as the good of the nation as whole. Tomorrow I will turn to framing strategies. I believe that Obama's approach on each point better serves the long term interests of progressive politics.
Disclaimer: I am a volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign in California, but when I post here I speak for myself and not for the campaign in any way. The campaign has had no input on this diary. The ideas, and all the words in it, are my own.