I've Decided on Obama
Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM PDT
Like many progressives across the blogosphere, I've been torn on which candidate to support for the Democratic primary. It's been a very difficult decision, not in small part because we have some extremely good candidates this year, and it pains me to think that any of them will be forced to actually lose this election. Honestly, I wish they could all win to one degree or another, as each one represents a piece of the Democratic/progressive puzzle.
First, John Edwards is a wonderful candidate with an outstanding message, and the strongest, most outspoken progressive populist we have. Richardson is a very successful governor with great executive experience. Dodd has a special place in my heart for his strident defense of the Constitution--I just wish he would get more media traction. Biden has run a very human, funny campaign, and his foreign policy platforms are actually my favorite of all the candidates. I love Kucinich's unabashed stances on holding the Bush/Cheney regime accountable. Gravel's "mix it up and do something different" theme is important in the overall debate. Even Clinton, whom I have savaged in my past writings, has a great voting record and the sort of fierce discipline on the campaign trail it takes to succeed as a candidate and CiC.
All of our candidates have been effective in demonstrating why the Right is wrong, and the Left is right.
But the reason I am supporting Obama this election is quite simple: this election isn't so much about left versus right as it is about past versus future. No, Obama isn't the fieriest progressive; no, he doesn't have the best experience per se; yes, he has used some uncomfortably conservative talking points in the last week, and on social security for quite some time now. But he is, in my opinion, the right person for the job.
For the job that lies ahead of the next President, time is of the essence. The economy is very weak and about to be in shambles; the climate crisis must be dealt with in a revolutionary way and quickly; Iraq is a huge problem; oil prices are through the roof; the middle class is rapidly disappearing. By the time the next President takes the oath of office, these problems will weigh on the country even more harshly than they do now, with even less time to fix them.
Too many in the progressive blogosphere believe that we can win progressive change in this country simply by fighting fire with fire: that if we counter Rovian aggression with our own progressive aggression, we'll take the discourse back and get serious change in this country. Certainly, we need to draw the strongest possible contrast between ourselves and the Republicans, nor should we back off in any way, shape or form from the fights that lie before us. Anyone who has read much of my past writings know that I am a strong advocate of take-no-prisoners political sparring and an opponent of triangulation.
But the piece-by-piece, election-by-election strategy of taking our country back being advocated by many in the blogosphere does not take into account the fact that we cannot afford to wait for incremental change. Progressives seeking to create change by simply rolling over the Republicans, breathing fire in their faces, and hoping for supermajorities in the House and Senate to ram through legislation are going to be sorely disappointed. First, no matter what kind of progressive populist holds the White House, the Democrats in the Congress will still be cynical manipulators looking toward their next election. Second, American politics is a cyclical affair: no sooner will we be on the cusp of a permanent Democratic majority, than the pendulum will swing back on us in a conservative direction again.
As I said before:
And if I'm right about the cynical manipulations of the Democratic leadership, they'll simply use those electoral victories to consolidate their own power, and begin looking toward the next election cycle, figuring out how best to make Republicans look bad without actually doing anything to make themselves look good.
The truth is that the likes of Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann do far, far more to advance the progressive cause than do those who work strenuously to put one more Senator or Representative in the Democratic column. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly have done far, far more to advance the conservative cause than any individual Republican Representative or Senator ever did.
The battle is not fought at the ballot box. The battle is fought in the media, on the streets, and in the hearts and minds of the American people. The ballot box is simply a contingent affirmation of the hopes, angers, fears and aspirations of the American people: fears and aspirations shaped, massaged and cultivated by influential voices.
To tackle the problems America faces today, it will take nothing short of a country united by a common vision, led by a charismatic leader unafraid to ask for sacrifices and major commitments by the American people. It will take a media rock star. It will take a President who more message-bringer than politician. It will take a President so beloved of Republicans and Independents, that weaselly Democratic Congressmen will feel that they can afford to be brave with their votes, so long as that President approves of those votes.
Too many have mistaken Obama's crossover appeal to bring America together as a Broderesque call for unity and centrism. I could be wrong, but to me, it's anything but. It's an opportunity to elect a charismatic leader who could genuinely lead us beyond the old arguments of left vs. right, and help America push for progressive reforms without alienating a vast swath of America.
This is what JFK did for a previous generation. This is what FDR did for generation before him. We need that kind of uplifting leadership again in this generation.
Much as the rest of the Democrats have much to offer and much to recommend them, I believe that Obama is the best person to give America the hope of moving beyond the old arguments, and uniting around a new progressive vision.
