There are two major types of martial arts: hard and soft. A hard style meets force with direct force: a kick or punch with a countering blow. Tai Kwon Do and Karate are usually considered hard styles.
A soft style in contrast aims to redirect force rather than to counter it:
Soft style martial arts seek to redirect force and upset balance. The opponent's energy and attack vectors are taken and manipulated into elegantly upsetting the attacker's equilibrium. The end result is an opponent whose own momentum is used against them (in a throw or trip) or who is brought into compromising holds and chokes. Examples of soft styles include aikido, some kung fu styles, jiu-jitsu, ninjitsu, and tai chi.
These two styles of technique apply in our political battles and an analogy can be drawn between Obama's style and John Edwards style using lessons drawn from the martial arts.
To the uninitiated it may seem that the hard styles will win over the soft style. However, most of the time an expert in soft-style arts will prevail over an expert in a hard style if the hard-style practitioner is unfamiliar with the techniques for attacking a soft-style opponent. The Karate practitioner who delivers strong force is unused to having that force redirected and used against him.
How does this apply to politics?
For most of recent political memory, the right has been thrashing the left by directly attacking them. Their attacks have been largely successful because the left have responded weakly often assuming an overly-defensive posture that causes observers to give too much credence to the right-wing perspective.
The Netroots has correctly pointed out that the right gains the upper hand when they are allowed to control the language of the debate. For this reason, kos and others have railed against Obama's seeming embrace of right-wing talking points. They see this as a losing strategy because they are thinking in terms of hard-style tactical battles.
So many in the Netroots see John Edward's combative approach as one that is more likely to work and therefore John Edwards as a better candidate than Obama.
Obama is using soft-style tactics because he realizes the right does not know how to respond to them. Soft-style tactics work by first embracing the force of the opponent and then deflecting it in an unintended direction which throws the opponent off balance and leaves them unable to respond because one cannot use force without equilibrium.
Consider Social Security, by embracing the idea that there is a looming problem with Social Security – admittedly a right-wing point – instead of fighting that idea, Obama can point out a solution that is easy to implement, easy to understand and one that does not involve privatization. Obama is taking the initiative away from the right. Since many people – myself included – do believe that we need to address the looming bulge in retirees with some sort of action there is potential force behind the right-wings blow.
Rather than fighting this, Obama uses this specific issue as an opportunity to show how our current tax policy is unfair to the poor by pointing out that our current policy is regressive. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do. Since this is now part of the public debate, the right will have to explain to everyone how their plan is better than simply adjusting the tax code to be fair.
So by first acknowledging a point the right will not and cannot dispute since they have been advocating the same point for their own agenda, Obama throws the right off balance. He then uses the previous right-wing agenda against them by showing how unfair the current system is. This is soft-style fighting at its very best.
Finally, the soft-style tactics used by Obama have the added benefit of civility. This style therefore is more likely to persuade independents and those who are tired of partisan politics. As a reformed independent who has recently committed myself to Democratic cause, I can understand how the right-wing's prior battles affects those in the middle, who have not committed to the left or the right. I was once one of them. Many of the points that the right-wing voices do find a receptive ear among independents. When they see Democrats fighting what seem to them to be obvious truths it turns them off. Many independents remain unconvinced of the either/or politics of both the right and the left. They see the world in shades of gray with only the occasional true black or white issue.
Obama has stated that in order to enact progressive legislation we need to build a broad coalition that transcends the traditional borders between left and right. To do this, he intends to bring many independents and even some Republicans to the table. Obama's soft-style approach is the best way to bring this about. It also happens to be much more effective against the right-wing machine that has shown great skill in hard-style hard-ball tactical fighting.
Before you vote in the primary, I urge you to consider how difficult it will be for the right to adapt to the soft-style tactics of Obama.