Obama understands how to win back the "Reagan Democrats"
Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:10:02 PM PDT
Yesterday, I diaried Paul Krugman's column about Obama's comments appearing to praise Ronald Reagan for bringing a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Even though I am an Obama supporter, I am (like Krugman) concerned that rhetoric like this is not helpful because Reagan's core philosophy that low taxes on the rich solves all ills (carried to its illogical extreme by Bush) is exactly what our nominee will have to battle, both to win the Presidency and to govern successfully.
One commenter -- ericd1112 -- offered a response so strong, I thought it was worth posting as a separate diary. (He is traveling right now, so I know he does not have time to diary his thoughts himself.) He argues that to be able to change Reagan's legacy, we need to first win back the "Reagan Democrats" and the way to do this is not to scold them but to show them we understand their concerns. Only then, with their support, can we implement policies that will actually HELP these mostly lower- and middle-class voters who were so badly betrayed by Reagan's (and Bush's) policies.
ericd1112's post after the jump...
Those trees in your way are the forest, people.
In terms of national politics, Reagan did one HUGE thing that we still have not undone - he created the "Reagan Democrats." Obama knows the way to beat back Reagan is to hoist him - and Kristol, and Grover Norquist - on his/their own petard.
Of course - don't EVEN go there - Obama is appalled by the Reagan policy agenda. The reason they got it in was "Ronnie." The nice guy, grandfatherly guy with ageless black hair, who said such uplifting words, was the perfect antidote to Carter.
In 1980 Americans were exhausted and afraid. After Nixon, after "Whip Inflation Now" Ford, after Carter, we were depressed. Now Carter used something novel, Information-Based Decision-Making, I realize, which meant that the things he said had, you know, facts behind them.
But Carter had absolutely no feel for how to LEAD. Ronnie, shallow as he was, knew how to motivate people. In contrast to Carter, Reagan was all about, "No, no, don't feel bad about yourselves as Americans - feel GOOD about yourselves. Don't get bogged down with guilt about Vietnam, don't get disillusioned and turned off from politics by Watergate - ENGAGE the process, turn things around. We can do it. Shining city on the hill." Et cetera.
Was Carter right on the facts? Of course. Did dwelling on that, wallowing in it, help the country move forward, turn the page? Of course not.
We DESERVED to get our asses kicked by Reagan. We didn't offer a way out that would motivate people to change. The same crowd that spends too much quality time with the Sunday New York Times couldn't see that a President needs sometimes to look past such things, that a leader...leads.
Reagan said "We're going to go THIS way" and - because Carter, God love him, didn't articulate a clear and better alternative, he lost.
The way to beat Reagan, to kill Reaganism once and for all, is to do what he did - take back a huge swath of the electorate with a better, more compelling vision. The R's are all about "Oh, be afraid of Bin Laden - he might show up on your door tomorrow!" and notice they're already gearing up for a fake - read that again, a FAKE - recession (the weak dollar means record trade, and the Chinese and the OPEC states, flush with dollars, have to park them here; we'll be fine), so that traditional Republicans will stay with their roots.
Facts notwithstanding - like Bill Clinton's balanced budget leading to unbridled prosperity - many people still equate Republicans with fiscal responsibility. I KNOW that's absurd - but what too many progressives miss is that that doesn't matter to huge segments of voters.
We need to change the minds of an entire block of voters who SHOULD, in terms of policies, be voting with us anyway. Dean was right about this - line up our policies and we win ever time.
Obama is showing true brilliance, true leadership, both for the party and for America. He knows that the whole Reagan Democrats demo is out there, that he can bring them back home. But one thing he has to do is send a message that they're not evil people and that he doesn't hate them.
I know you may - but we're talking about the President of the United States, not the President of People Who Agree With Him. Or Her.
Which is central to why Krugman is wrong. HillBilly is all about vanquishing foes, of slash-and-burn, of tear-down politics. Obama is all about leading, of addition.
I am NOT saying that it would be OK, in that circumstance, for Sen. Obama to then embrace ANY of Ronnie's positions. Those trees in front of you? They're the forest, people. Obama is truly about uniting the country and you just can't get it done unless you make it OK for most Americans to buy into the vision. By saying, in effect, "Hey, I don't totally hate Reagan" (leaving off the part about well, I do pretty much hate everything he stood for) you make it OK for people to vote with us who would be fooled by this idea that somehow John McCain is a warm and fuzzy left-friendly Republican.
McCain is more Bush. McCain is keeping a Republican in charge of Interior, in charge of Court appointments, in charge of the EPA - and in charge of Defense.
Obama needs - we need - to keep our eye on that particular ball. We're about winning over hearts and minds, kids - and blowing up Obama because he didn't continuously look cross-eyed at Reagan and by implication all those Reagan D's who bought his crap because it was wrapped in an appealing package - will lead to nominating HillBilly (again) and to getting blown out just like McGovern did. 49 to 1.
See the trees, people, see the trees. Obama will be there for you on 90+% of what you want. And given the, ahem, diversity of this crowd, that's a damn high average.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Obama is right to blunt hatred and he is way more than just good. The dude's got skills, and he can LEAD. Which is how we win.
Obama says, "We have to change our politics." He shrewdly doesn't finish that sentence. It's "We have to change our politics so that we can regain the attention of enough of the country long enough that those numbskulls realize they should have been voting with us all along."
Not a bumper sticker slogan - which is why he mantras just the first part.
Permalink | 46 comments