Obama is a Reagan Democrat
Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:24:04 AM PDT
No, no, it's not what you think! I'm not accusing Obama of being a Liebercrat or a DLCer or a triangulator or a... surrenderer. In fact, I happen to be an Obama supporter. No, I'm accusing Obama of being a Great Communicator.
I know, I know, it's been said before. He's articulate... he's eloquent... he can give a good speech. That's not what I mean though. If you follow me below the fold, I'll explain to you why Obama might be just as good for the progressive movement as Reagan was for the conservative jihad movement.
I consider myself to be a rational, sensible person. So as an Obama supporter, when this anti-Obama fever swept over DailyKos, I was just a little confused. At first it seemed appropriate. Certainly Obama is not everyone's cup of tea and I know a lot of progressives dislike his occasional tendency to break the framing rules. No problem there. Then of course there's John Edwards who is AMAZING. Certainly a lot of people will be feeling him and that's cool too.
But the fever grew hotter and hotter, to a point where I started to avoid this place. I was uncomfortable. I felt that I had made a huge mistake. Had I been tricked by Obama's charm? Had I not learned anything in my time here, strolling through reality? What did these fervent Edwards supporters know that I did not? Am I shallow by continuing to stick by Obama despite the unrelenting criticism coming his way -- that he has no meat, he's an empty suit -- there's "no there, there?" That he appeases the right-wing, he's a surrender monkey, he undermines our party, he has no substance, no experience and is not a committed progressive.
No. I am not shallow, nor am I stupid. And I still support Obama.
I couldn't stay away from DKos, it's a little like crack. I came back and supported my fellow Obama fans with as much mo-jo as I could muster while I soaked up the knowledge provided by my fellow Kossacks. Then came the Kos hit job...
My confusion and frustration grew to... hmmm... anger might be strong, but something like anger. So much so that I wrote thisdiary a couple days ago. Note the difference in tone between that diary and this one. I've done a lot of thinking since then and I also happened to stumble across this post from a couple days ago by Glenn Greenwald. It really opened my eyes:
but at least thus far, Barack Obama is the only candidate even thinking and talking about the deeper and more fundamental diseases plaguing how our political system works. Whatever criticisms of his candidacy thus far are valid, a "lack of substance" isn't one of them, and that's true even if he hasn't yet developed the details or even broad contours of his health care plan.
I encourage you to read the entire article, it's quite brilliant and speaks to some of the larger criticisms of Obama. It immediately reminded me of something I wrote in my profile on my.barack page. When asked why I supported Barack Obama I replied:
I support Barack Obama because he is fully committed to changing the tone in Washington D.C. This is the most important thing the President can do in the next term.
And I stand by that because it finally occurred to me that we are being presented with a rare opportunity. Perhaps the best thing for the progressive movement is not to offer up our "purist" candidate for the oval office, but instead a strong progressive with BROAD APPEAL. Someone who might not always say what we want him to, but will most of the time do what we want him to, while convincing some skeptics and new voters that the Democratic Party has their best interest in mind, without compromising our progressive values. Someone who can finish the job we started in 2006 of bringing those low-info voters and independents back into the fold of reality. If that's a lack of substance, then FUCK substance. Is it triangulation? Well, not anymore than being a Libertarian Democrat... ahem...
As an Obama supporter I could tout his progressive voting record, his many attempts at meaty legislation, his accomplishments in civil rights and community service. I could point out that there isn't a great deal of difference between Edwards and Obama other than their rhetoric. I could remind everyone that despite good intentions, Edwards, Clinton, Dodd and Biden all voted to authorize the quagmire we currently find ourselves in.
And I guess I just did. But NONE OF IT MATTERS. If that's the kind of stuff we're going to focus on, then we're wasting our time because all of the Democratic nominees are stellar and ANY of them could end up being the nominee. (Just to clarify, I'm really not talking about Gravel or Kucinich, but feel free to praise them up in the comments if you're a supporter).
What does matter is Obama is our Great Communicator -- the Democratic answer to Ronald Reagan. I'll wait a minute as you clear the vomit from your throat and comprehend how valuable this is. ;-)
Maybe Clinton and Edwards and Biden and all the rest do have some good plans. That's great and I'm genuinely pleased about that. But those plans will be irrelevant if we don't "change the way we do politics" as Obama so often suggests.
Think about it this way. In order to reverse the damage inflicted upon our nation by the Bush administration, the Democratic party will have to control the House, the Senate AND the White House. And even then, it will be like pulling nails, trying to pass legislation with the OBSTRUCTIONIST republicans gnawing at our ankles, accusing us of being traitors. And it's all disgusting! We shouldn't have to have one-party rule to fix our country, anyway, but we do. We should be able to get things done even with Republicans in control of one or more branches (or houses). That won't happen until we change our politics, which won't happen until we put Republicans and their media allies in their place, which won't happen until independents and new voters are firmly in our camp, which won't happen until we convince them that we're better, which won't happen until they trust their President, which happens to be a Democrat (and in my opinion, happens to be Obama). And none of it requires any caving or triangulation. Sure President Obama will try his best (wink, wink) to work with Republicans, because they were voted into office by their constituents and deserve to be at least heard. And non-blogger, low-info Democrats WANT that.
In short, I think Obama will change the way the American people look at the Democratic Party AND their government. I'm not convinced Clinton or Edwards or the rest could do the same... That's not to say Obama is perfect and will never make mistakes. But last I checked, he was still human.
PS. Let's give Obama some time to come up with policy specifics. Unlike some, he's never run for President before...
Permalink | 86 comments