I found a lecture by Rick Perlstein given at Vanderbilt:
Rick Perlstein at Vanderbilt
He had some very interesting things to say about President Obama and the HCR bill. Also he talks about where the cons are now and why they have lined up with the populist anger.
If you can, watch the lecture and then come back for the discussion.
From Perlstein's bio on Huffpost:
Rick Perlstein is the author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, which will be published by Scribner on May 13, 2008. His first book, Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, won the 2001 Los Angeles Times Book Award for history. It appeared on the best books lists that year of the New York Times,
What I got out of the lecture was this:
Obama and the dems are missing the boat and losing the populist argument because:
- The insistence of Obama that the last 8 years not be re litigated and that the failure of the conservative ideas not be promoted.
- That the HCR bill is too complex to be able to sell using a simple narrative.
- That the netroots and dKos represent a movement and Obama and Emanuel have decided to ignore it. This is a problem because progressive policies or liberalism needs to have a movement to continue its promotion. And, just as the conservative movement has relied on the "Christian Coalition", the left needs its promoters and supporters and troops. So Obama and Rahm putting us down does not help the chances of the dems come November. In fact it sets up a scenario very like Clinton's first mid term.
Where I disagree with him is that he feels that we have fairly strong institutions that will allow us to survive "lock and load" idiots. But I do agree with him wholeheartedly in his disapproval of the press.
So, following up, what do you think is our role as a movement? Do you even think of dKossians as a movement? When viewed against the Rushian or Beckian movement how do we fair? I think we have severe problems in even becoming relevant as we only have the intertubes as an ally. We can make dents, big time dents, in local politics, however, and we should, IMO, push further into the weeds there. School boards, we are finding out, have an enormous potential for influence and we should take a corresponding view of that influence potential.
I think it is really fascinating to see how politicians approach us and try to use our capabilities. Some stick their toe in and timidly announce they are running and think they it all they have to do. Others use every tactic they can to gather our allegiance and our energy and enthusiasm. In turn, it is fascinating to see how WE use people and how WE take opportunities to harness THEIR energy and enthusiasm. We have a good half a million peope in the orbit of dKos but not all of them, for sure, are progressives. Some are dems, some are repubs harboring from the fallout of 8 years of Bush and some are independents who just like the drama of politics. How many of us would line up behind anything? How many of us would fight anybody who had the nerve to line up behind something? I have likened us to a bunch of feral cats in a tow sack and that is just the declared democrat factions!
What populist issues would you like to see happen? I like the Consumer Protection Agency as an independent agency that would fight credit card cos and banksters for us. So naturally it won't happen. What do you think we could make happen?
And, on another note, what did you think of the Student Loan Reform tucked into the HCR reconciliation? What kind of narratives can we use for that and for HCR that would help sell our angry fringers?
UPDATED from MBAYROB:
His "Four Rules That Define a Transformative Presidency" are important for everybody to understand. The ones I remember:
*) a transformative leader makes a case against the ideology recently voted out as failed. Obama did this (under duress, Perlstein argues) towards the end of his presidential campaign, but was not really comfortable with it.
*) a transformative leader is not afraid to label extremists on the other side extremists, and outside of what is acceptible in public discourse. This was done by folks like JFK dealing with the John Birch Society, but Perlstein points out that Obama simply refuses to do this, thereby legitimizing the fringe.
*) a transformative leader is willing to talk about the problems of most Americans, and particularly concerning their problems with corporate power. Obama won't do this either.
I forget what the first thing was, but this was not something he felt Obama was neglecting.
Perlstein thinks, in the light of the "he said, she said" laziness of the corporate media (he uses Time then and now as an example of how badly off we are) that Obama is unlikely to have the effect on our discourse that we would like, and it's unlikely (in Perlstein's opinion) that we'll get the benefits from the ACA (Affordable Care Act) that we would otherwise get.