Have you ever stepped into it. And for what? Ego? Political greed? Or is there much that you still don’t get?
What Reagan and GWB understood and Clinton didn’t is that one never, ever, alienates certain factions within one’s political coalition to pander to a faction within the opposing party’s coalition. It’s tough enough to hold together one’s own coalition when agendas within the factions differ. GWB learned that when he waded into the immigration debate. Factional conflict within the GOP is rare; not so much because they agree on everything but because the factional agendas don’t impact or interfere with each other. As long as the "fundies" get anti-abortion, low taxes and god talk they won’t interfere with the "have mores" looting the Federal Treasury.
The advantage a Democratic politician has is that he/she can symbolically throw women and African-Americans under the bus without fear of alienating them -- we’re used to being dumped. Not so with the true progressives (including the seeds of its regeneration, the youth vote) and LGBT factions. Tiny as their numbers may seem, cavalierly dismissing them is a good way to lose an election or necessary political capital for several election cycles. They contributed votes and enthusiasm to Clinton’s 1992 election; the first year the LGBT faction began to organize and the first time since 1968 when an identifiable youth vote on the left emerged. Both were lost by ’94 and voter participation continued to decline. Against one of the worst GOP nominees, Clinton failed to capture a majority in ’96. Then there was 2000.
Republicans also understand the power of symbolism. That venues define when interacting with those across the aisle is acceptable and not. And that certain venues must be kept as bland and non-controversial as possible. On the second point, GWB could have private weekly conference calls with the Dobsons, Hagees, etc., but none of them would be invited to give the invocation at his inauguration. And there’s no way in hell that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would be given the honor. On the first point, there is a difference between getting face time at a event with a hostile host (for example, GWB attending the funeral service for Coretta Scott King) and giving that host a premiere role at an inauguration. An event that should not be overtly partisan but that doesn’t mean that it should be overtly bipartisan and pay homage to those who did everything in their power to elect the "other guy."
The horror of GWB was sufficient for the natural and solid majority of liberalism in America to coalesce in ‘06. With a good candidate and well run campaign, and in spite of the spinelessness of Pelosi and Reid and the venality of the Blue Dogs in Congress, the coalition held through ‘08 and delivered a sound governing majority. And before even taking office, Obama is acting as if he’s hell-bent on destroying that majority.
Post-partisanship is a wooly-headed notion. As likely to come into existence in the US as pure communism. Bi-partisanship, that oddly has been elevated to some sort of ideal, is what gave us deregulation, the Iraq War, warrantless spying and Lieberman and McCain. Why would we want more of that? And more of that is all that bi-partisanship can achieve because the surviving Republicans hate government of, by and most importantly, FOR the people. But those on the left gave Obama a pass on his post and bi-partisanship rhetoric because we understood that it was just talk -- wishful thinking that would disappear once the on-the-job reality set in.
It now appears that Obama will resist that reality. His words have now become deeds. A big problem when those words present internal contradictions. Choosing to be blessed by a bigot at the his inauguration to symbolically reinforce bi-partisanship is incompatible with equal rights and inclusion for all minorities. And actions speak louder than words. An act not lost on the GBLT community and even the moderate NOW feminists. An act that brings all too many of his cabinet selections into clearer relief. Who knew that the change we voted for was merely a question of tone? Rick Warren instead of James Dobson. Robert Gates instead of, uhh – but, but he’s changed his tone of late. Now that’s the audacity of hope; all we need is a change in tone to end the wars, fix the economy, etc.