Eons ago (actually Jan 08 - between Iowa and New Hampshire), I wrote wrote my take on Obama, Clinton and Edwards. (Well, OK, forget the Edwards part :-) The diary wasn't really about whether he would win or lose. I was more fascinated by his 'strategic' approach to the campaign and I speculated about its potential implications should he get the opportunity to govern.
As I watch his current performance on the world stage, I realize that I grossly underestimated the man. His strategic vision far, far exceeded my comprehension. Even more stunning is the elegance and simplicity of his strategy. It's not Machiavellian in the least. It's not even rocket science. It's far better than that.
First, indulge me by letting be restate a portion of that now dusty diary:
But winning the election is only the smallest part of the strategy. The real challenge will be governing. This is where Obama is really audacious. He has spoken often about building the coalition to support a governing agenda of real change. His view is that any substantive change will face tremendous resistance and opposition. The only way to overcome that resistance is to build a bank of national political capital (i.e. emotion) that can pay the huge bills that will come due. Moreover, he needs to keep that capital safe until the time is right to spend it. We have seen too often how establishment infighting can fritter away that priceless capital - long before it buys any substantive work.
What safer bank than the hearts and minds of an army of committed progressives, passionate young Americans and pragmatic independents? Once again, the enemies of change must find them before they can disillusion them. With Obama's solid oratorical skills and a clear plan, it won't be easy to unsell them from their hopes and ideals - be it for health care, solutions to global warming, energy independence, fiscal responsibility, or foreign reputation. Of course, the right wing can succeed if he screws up, but otherwise it will be a real tough challenge. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter. Gingrich and Hannity are way out of their league.
Of course, there will be some attrition and devaluation of his initial political currency. But it should be less than for the opposing side. Gender, generational and ethnic fault lines will all shift slowly and inexorably against the right wing agenda. The ranks of the young will expand with new energy, while bitter, aged conservatives will dwindle and tire. Latinos and Blacks will find new voice and excitement, while rural conservatives will become more shrill and irritable. Women will feel empowered as their agenda is restored. In 2012, these shifts will have chipped away a bit at the conservative base. By 2016, that base will look like Swiss cheese.
Obama will also have an advantage that Bill Clinton never had. He will face real challenges and real enemies right from the start. Bill Clinton doesn't get the credit for the halcyon days of 1990s that most Democrats think he should. But, truth be told, he didn't have that hard a task. A lot of world and domestic factors conspired in America's favor. The Cold War ended and America invented the Internet. Peace broke out and prosperity reigned. Bill did a really great job but, deep down, most Americans know that Bill was never tested to anywhere near his prodigious capacity. Perhaps if he had been, he wouldn't have had time for Monica.
Obama will be tested to his ultimate limit. His strategy will be tested. His stamina will be tested. His judgment will be tested. His focus and concentration will be tested. His leadership will be tested. If he can pass the inevitable early tests, he will be able to replenish and multiply his political capital in a way that will allow him to reinvest it in truly transformative change. It could be the stuff of a new FDR. I hope/believe/pray that he will face the right challenges and make the right calls.
I have no idea whether any of this is Obama's strategy as he has envisions it. I can only infer strategic thinking from the revealed actions of the candidate and his campaign. However, if I have gotten even a part of this right, his strategy is bold and daring. It suggests to me that he is a born strategist and he is swinging for the fences. The risk is that it will be a long out instead of a grand slam.
Apart from missing the Republican disintegration by 3 years or so, I think that was a respectable bit of Nostradamusing. It seemed to me then and now that Barack was executing a perfect end run around the cynics in the corporate, political and chattering class. He was talking directly to people like me (and a whole lot of people on this site and across America). It was also seemed clear that he was using that direct pipeline to disarm and disable his adversaries. He was building a huge, nearly clandestine, reservoir of goodwill that they could neither measure nor understand.
But I was oh so wrong. I used words like national and progressives and talked about the right wing and American constituencies. I thought so small. I couldn't comprehend the scope of the vision.
Now I see.
In the past few days, I saw President Obama command a powerful response in Europe. I saw young and old people in Strasbourg listening to our President in absolutely riveted attention. I saw the European PRESS, for God's sake, applauding his words. I saw thousands in Prague hanging on his every word about nuclear disarmament. I am seeing ... a lot more of the same.
Barack's strategy isn't just to build a solid base of support among the American people. His strategy is to build support among the people of Europe and eventually the entire world. He needs a base of "progressives, passionate young Americans people and pragmatic independents" to embrace hope and propel change in every country of the world.
He is doing it by being genuine. People believe in his fundamental intelligence and honesty. He may turn out to be wrong, but he isn't phony. That trust has been so lacking among so many politicians for so long. Not just in America, but everywhere.
Notice, when I listed the reactions of the Queen and ordinary people, I said nothing about the world leaders at the G-20. Nothing about Sarkozy. Nothing about Jintao. Nothing about Singh. Why? Because they're not really important. Of course they're impressed by the President. They probably really like and respect him. But that's just a handy byproduct.
His real goal is to get their people to like him and, by extension, to get their people to like us. Sarkozy might be cajoled into supporting a stimulus. He might be convinced by force of intellect that contributing more to Afghanistan is in French self-interest. But in the long run, he must answer to the French people. If the French people love Barack and absolutely adore Michelle, Sarkozy can safely do more. He can take risks that would have been unthinkable with a Bush-led America, perhaps even with a Kerry-led or Gore-led America. He can actually increase his popularity at home by working more closely with our President.
That dynamic appears to apply worldwide. Even, I suspect, in countries where democratic forces are comparatively weak. Every leader (even despotic ones) would rather do something the people approve of than something they detest. Democrats worry about elections. Despots worry about pitchforks. I'm betting that the Iranian Mullahs will be able to cooperate just a tad more with America without seeming weak. Young Iranians and the Iranian street will at least partially approve. Perhaps even applaud. I know that Barack is personally far more popular in Turkey than is America.
On every issue, on every stage, in every part of America and in every part of the world, President Obama just runs the same play. He uses his intelligence and genuineness to build a reservoir of goodwill among ordinary folks that political opponents cannot touch. It is the 800lb gorilla in every political room, in every international conference hall and in every world leader's domestic tracking poll.
It is simple and elegant, but depends totally on his strength of persistence. It is an unstoppable strategy - provided that he never slacks off. Provided that he never loses his cool. Provided that he always listens and reasons and speaks to peoples' better angels. Provided that he confronts crises and no one ever sees him sweat.
The only really Machiavellian aspect to this strategy is what it does to his opponents. Most of them cannot even comprehend his method. They keep looking for the 'slip' or the 'gaffe' or the 'third rail issue' that will give them the negative leverage they know so well how to use. But he won't give them that handhold. And when he accidentally, sort of, slightly does, his base simply doesn't care.
Two final thoughts.
First, There have been lots of comments about Michelle's role. Most have been very admiring. A few have been dismissive. I submit that her role is actually game-changing. She is creating so much goodwill that Barack's strategy may be working even better than he expected. She is reaching people that he can't, and reaching them faster. I watched Michelle speak to schoolgirls in London. I saw the Queen put her hand on Michelle's back as Michelle embraced her. I saw people lining up for hours just to see Michelle's motorcade. In this strategy of war by popular appeal, Michelle is turning out to be an entire (and hitherto stealth) army.
Second, I strongly suspect that Hillary is the quiet hero in this strategy. I'm just guessing, but I bet she has been setting world leaders up for Barack's pitch - and now she'll get to mop them off the floor. She will make damn sure that they keep ALL of their public promises. She's a rock star in her own right, with enough personal star power to make any world leader look very, very good - or incredibly wussy - in front of his/her populace. If Barack hadn't won, Hillary might have pulled off this strategy herself internationally. However, it would have been a lot harder to do it at home.
Damn, I love the smell of competence in the morning.