Obama's Vision of America and Why It Matters

Mr. Obama's appeal lies in his desire to bring Americans together in a new age of bipartisan cooperation.  Bipartisanship is a phrase being coined by every Democratic candidate and is one of the most popular issues of the past 20 years.  Bill Clinton ran on this very issue in '92 and Bush did the same in 2000.  Here we are as the Democratic party once again discussing bipartisanship.  Everybody says they believe in it and will bring back bipartisanship to Washington, but what does that mean?  It's not enough for any of the candidates to simply say they support bipartisanship and show a record of bipartisanship in office without first framing the discussion of bipartisanship and establishing a context and definition of bipartisanship in government.  

The allure and excitement for Mr. Obama's campaign  thus far and the base of his platform is the appeal he makes to the center, the idea that the different groups in government and society at large need to unify into a new more cohesive and cooperative American identity.  It is a fantastic vision and the language and imagery he uses in his speeches such as the one at the 2004 Convention communicate passion and enthusiasm that is compelling:  

There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and a white America and a Latino America and an Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice our country into red states and blue states.... But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

 

Many supporters of Mr. Obama are drawn to him for his vision of a new era of cooperation in Washington.  He has charisma, a fresh perspective, and a sense of urgency that is inspiring.  

This sensibility informs his politics, and he leaves no doubt of his debt to American civic culture—the great universities he attended, the political proc- ess that he encountered as an organizer, frustrating as it was; all the ways by which citizens can grow to become a part of something larger than themselves. He makes plain his belief that such a culture is something to cherish and foster so that it will be more inclusive. That is what he talks about in his best speeches. In a political climate in which very few Democrats have had anything genuinely interesting to say for a very long time, this is what makes him, deservedly, a star.  (taken from New York Review of Books book review of Audacity of Hope by Michael Tomasky)

   Mr. Obama does speak about bipartisanship in a new way that is refreshing and exciting however the framing of his bipartisanship is the issue that requires futher examination as it does for all of the candidates.  Every candidate in both parties speaks of bringing people together.  The frame of that bipartisanship however is important to define.  One of the most extreme cases of this is George Bush in 2000 who ran a campaign with visionary rhetoric about bi-partisanship only to lead this country into a paralysis of irrational partisanship.  

More important though than a candidate's desire to achive bipartisanship is for us as voters to gain a deeper sense of how that bipartisanship is defined and put into action.  Obama defines his vision of the need for bi-partisanship as one in which...:  

...we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority.  We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.  Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard.  They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice.  The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone.  Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice.  We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties.  We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system.  And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.(taken from Mr. Obama's diary 9/30/2005)

 

Mr. Obama articulates a concise urgent arguement for tangible concrete bipartisanship that is commendable.  His vision does differ to a certain extent from that of Clinton and represents a post Clinton/Bush environment in which both parties have fought bitter partisan battles for almost 16 years.  His departure from Clintonian Centrism is fascinating and has made a big splash in the public.  It has been successful given the growing fatigue with Hillary Clinton's own ties to her husband's brand of bi-partisanship that in the eyes of many voters has run its course and to a certain extent brought us to this important dangerous juncture in the political landscape of 2008.

The context of Mr. Obama's vision of bipartisanship however raises questions about the environment in which Mr. Obama envisions bringing opposing political factions together.  In his vision there is clear common ground to be shared by the current incarnations of the Democrats and the Republicans.  He explains:

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist."  In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark.  Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough.  But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well.  And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will.  This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required.  It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.  (Mr. Obama 9/30/2005)

Mr. Obama makes valid points about how bipartisanship can work in the current climate, but at the same time I am concerned about the framing of his definition of bipartisanship.  He makes clear his belief that the current GOP wants to work with the Democrats and has demonstrated a history of making policies that benefit the American people and has their best interests at heart.  I disagree with Mr. Obama over this impression of the GOP and the possibility for tangible successful cooperation between the 2 parties that actually benefits the public.  

Paul Krugman, in his book Conscience of a Liberal defines bipartisanship in a very different context.  He discusses the bipartisanship that existed in the 1950's during the Eisenhower Administration and he points to the common ground shared by Democrats and Republicans during that time in embracing the basic principles of the New Deal policies of FDR.  Michael Tomansky did a nice analysis of Mr. Krugman in his review of Conscience of a Liberal :

These decisions dramatically reduced inequality and, far from having the cataclysmic effects on the economy predicted by conservatives at the time, they led to the postwar boom. (He emphasizes that the rich then were far less rich than they are today, a point to which he returns several times throughout the book.) And then, because they were so successful, the decisions he describes became widely accepted after the war.

This is the subject of Krugman's fourth chapter—how the decline in inequality led to a decline in political polarization. When Harry Truman won the 1948 election, the GOP dropped its project of trying to repeal the New Deal. After that election, "the Republican Party survived—but it did so by moving toward the new political center." He cites the work of three political scientists—Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, and Nolan McCarty—who have studied the different degrees of polarization and cooperation in every Congress since the nineteenth century and who found, sure enough, that the Congresses of the 1950s saw far more ideological overlap between the parties than did the Congresses of the 1920s or the current decade. Things were looking almost too good:

"In sum, between 1948 and sometime in the 1970s both parties accepted the changes that had taken place during the Great Compression [of inequality]. To a large extent the New Deal had created the political conditions that sustained this consensus. A highly progressive tax system limited wealth at the top, and the rich were too weak politically to protest. Social Security and unemployment insurance were untouchable programs, and Medicare eventually achieved the same status. Strong unions were an accepted part of the national scene."  (Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman)

Mr. Krugman lays out clearly that not only is bipartisanship possible but can be extremely successful given the right circumstances to develop.  By Mr. Krugman's definition, bipartisanship is not even possible at this point in US history due to the current philosophy of the GOP to systematically dismantle the last important pieces of the New Deal.  When considering his definition of bipartisanship, Mr.Obama's call for bipartisanship rings hollow.  How can the Democrats seek compromise with a party that is diametrically opposed to the very foundations of the New Deal Democratic Party?  The entire framework of politics has to take a seismic shift back towards the left before real bipartisanship can become a reality.  By Mr. Obama's definition that reality already exists and can exploited by the right person (him).  Mr. Krugman however shows quite clearly how the GOP has evolved in a completely different direction from the party they were in the 1950's.  

The story, as we know, takes a dark turn from this point. Chapters follow on the social turmoil of the 1960s (still a bucolic time economically, Krugman points out); the rise of "movement conservatism" in the 1970s, against the backdrop of the oil crisis and defeat in Vietnam; the emergence of Ronald Reagan and the push toward a new inequality; the right-wing war against unions and the collapse of the 1949 "Treaty of Detroit" that ensured good wages and benefits and labor peace in the auto industry; and the "weapons of mass distraction," i.e., the racial demagoguery and the social issues that Republicans have used to such triumphal effect, as for example in Reagan's "thinly disguised appeals to segre-gationist sentiment" to win Southern states in 1980; and, more recently, the Bush administration's effective use of coded language to address the Christian right.(Tomasky, New York Review of Books)

Theses are not your daddy's Republicans!  The GOP of the 21st century is a fundamentally different beast from the GOP of 1950's.  Even in Obama's own words, he mentions we need to consider faith based initiatives to show Democrats' sincere desire to compromise with Republicans.  Faith based initiatives in government are a violation of the separation of church and state clause of the Constitution.  Is compromise with repbulicans in the current climate more important than upholding the Constitution?    

Mr. Obama's vision of of bipartisanship almost comes across as a throwback mentality to the days of real bipartisanship of the 1950's and it's a wonderful image but the problem is the party he wants to include has no intention of returning to it's roots to play nice.  Less than a month before Mr. Obama published his diary, Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party, the Republicans he holds with such high regard were lying and fumbling their way through the tragedy of Hurricane Katriana  Just look at the current crop of Republican candidates.  Not one man has anything in common with Dwight Eisenhower.  Year in and year out republican candidates become more extreme in their desire to tear down the New Deal.  

The irony is the man from which Mr. Obama has taken so much offense, Mr. Krugman, also sees the value of the 1950's era of bipartisanship.  But, Mr. Krugman has a fundamentally different understanding of what bipartisanship is and what we need as nation from our new president in navigating the rough seas of partisanship in the 21st century.  Before real bipartisanship can occur the center needs to move back towards the left and where it was before the rise of the post-Eisenhower GOP.  The shift back is shaping up to be a partisan battle of monumental consequences for the future of this country.  Until then, all talk of bipartisanship is just an illusion.  Mr. Obama has placed his faith in the American people, but can that same faith be placed in the Republican party of the 21st century to achieve a new vision for the United States of America?

Links:
Audacity of Hope review by Michael Tomasky, NYROB    
Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party, Mr. Barack Obama, 9/30/05
Conscience of a Liberal review by Michael Tomasky, NYROB