Exhuming Reagan's corpse
Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:48:53 AM PDT
It happens each Republican debate. Each rich Republican hopeful poses for pictures with it, a limp arm slung over the hopeful's shoulder.
Today, DailyKos has descended to a similar depth of Reagan necromania. But instead of propping it up, people are writing comments to a highly recommended diary that disparage, stomp on, and otherwise desecrate Reagan's corpse.
That's fine -- say where you stand with respect to Reagan! For me, it is a great litmus test. Anyone who lived through the 1980's and thinks it was "Morning in America" is certifiably insane in my book.
Now, let's talk about Obama.
I appreciate that everyone is looking for the holy grail of the campaign gaffe, but, people! There are comments to a recommended diary about Obama's remark on Reagan with 50 recommends that basically pound on Reagan's corpse and then say "See, Obama?"
And that's tragic. I listened to the entire 49 minute interview, and this is a real miscarriage of justice. That's not too strong a phrase.
Obama was talking about perceptions, and the way candidates are received by the public. We know that is the topic from the question that was asked (why isn't this mentioned in our discussion?):
So is your conversation now intended to turn toward African-American people to endorse candidates, to vote for candidates who have this particular ideological stance?
Did anyone notice that this exchange is about race? Specifically, on Obama's appeal to the African-American voter? His answer begins:
My pitch now is to vote for me, because I think I can deliver on what I just promised. . . But I always say that I can't do this by myself. . . There is no legislative magic that allows you to pass bold proposals unless the American people are behind you.
He is being asked about his appeal, about the dynamics of the nomination. He goes on to talk about how can one actually change things given the power of oil companies, etc. Obama says a president needs popular support. (The lead-up to the question was his saying that popular support is needed to overcome special interests: "If congressmen start to play games, the public understands, and that's why it is so important to open up the process.") But special interests are so powerful that "unless a president comes in" and has public support for specific policies, we'll keep getting legislation that favors special interests. The follow-up question:
Granted, you're here to get yourself elected [inaudible] but at this period of time you're running up to people voting for their congressmen and their senators. . .
Obama's answer cuts in:
If I'm the nominee I'll have a better chance of bringing in people of like mind.
He says he's shifting the political paradigm, he can bring people along on my coattails -- elect Democratic congressmen and senators. It is in this context that he is talking about whether a person can activate voters. Obama talks about the possibility of bringing people together, of starting a movement despite the partisanship in congress (he explicitly says there is more of that coming from the Republicans, btw).
Now comes the Reagan quote. Look at all the words that are talking about people's perception that Reagan was actually representing their views:
I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
It is about what people thought about Reagan. He is not saying he liked Reagan's policies (elsewhere he has explicitly said the opposite), he is saying he wants to emulate the way Reagan was able to "change the paradigm."
I can prove this. Look at the line -- still part of the same answer -- that is left out of the diary:
I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it had to do with the times.
This demolishes the idea that Obama is approving of Reagan's policies. He says the exact same thing about Kennedy. It isn't about policy, it is about the possibility of "resonating with the American people." It is about being perceived as the right person at the right time.
Personal note: I too went to college in the Reagan era and I have hated Reagan as long and as bitterly as anyone. But Obama's overly cerebral comments are not praising Reagan, they're talking about something I distinctly remember -- the way that people believed Reagan was speaking for them. It drove me crazy that Ronald Reagan was able to create a new center by effectively moving the center to the right. You have to acknowledge that if you want to understand how someone as batsh*t crazy as George Bush ever got into office.
Do I want a candidate to resonate the same way that Kennedy and Reagan did, except with liberal values? Yes, on Obama, yes on Edwards, and yes on Clinton. Yes, yes, yes. That's a great goal, and it is actually expressed very clearly by this candidate.
Reagan's corpse? Stop flinging it at people. Especially people who have spent their entire lives as progressives trying to fix the problems Reagan created.
Permalink | 63 comments