As One Stand Together

Those thinking Barack Obama needed to get more down to earth and concrete will be disappointed with this new ad:

On the other hand, I do think it captures something important. Obama's "unity" message has sometimes seems to be mirroring Broder-like calls for "bipartisanship" -- for closer collaboration between elites in both parties. But there's always been a different, better side to the message, going back to The Speech from 2004:

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.

The point here of coming together, which I think is echoed in the new ad, isn't about cross-party collaboration among elites. Rather, the idea here is that conservative politicians have succeeded achieved political success by portraying progressive political leaders as un-American and culturally alien but that this move itself is alien to the real spirit of America.

Comments

Point taken, Matt, but don't you think Obama needs to get specific about what he'd actually do to achieve this beautiful vision? The New Hampshire results showed that the Clinton brand carries a lot of weight among voters who feel anxious about current economic trends -- the same voters who recall fondly Bill Clinton's fight to shift the tax burden onto the very rich and away from middle-class and working-class voters. Obama ignores this policy area at his peril.

At this point Obama's strategy seems to be deliberate fuzziness on policy. That approach may capture the love of anti-policy centrists like Broder and Sullivan but I'm not sure it will win over a majority of Democratic primary voters.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 11, 2008 8:58 AM

Apropos of this thread, Mr. Yglesias might want to comment on todays' column by his favorite columnist, Charles Krauthammer, who looses a broadside against Senator Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003245.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by SLC | January 11, 2008 9:12 AM

If only the Dems would see that Obama is far more likely to achieve liberal goals, since A.)he's more likely to get elected, and B.)he will be better able to command public opinion by dint of his personal appeal and rhetorical skills. Obama's speeches inspire approval in independents and respect even in Republicans. Hillary's laundry lists get approving nods from hardcore Democrats, shrugs from moderates, and inspired resistance from right-wingers. Perhaps the Reagan experience has soured you charm as an invaluable asset for a politician (it shouldn't matter! Our policies poll better! Waaaahh!), but it is more than invaluable - it is indispensable. And Hillary is devoid of it. I should think the John Kerry experience would have encouraged a little more Democratic self-doubt of their ability to judge what kind of politician appeals to a broader electorate.

As someone who's not that liberal, Obama worries me in some ways despite that fact that I greatly admire him as a person. I wonder if Democrats will wake up and realize they've got a once-in-a-generation political talent on their hands.

Posted by Xeynon | January 11, 2008 9:13 AM

Goodness... I think this is the first time Matt has ever even come close to comprehending Barack Obama. The man is trying to fix the Democratic brand.

Posted by J.B. | January 11, 2008 9:14 AM

Meanwhile, the gathering economic storm would seem to offer an advantage to Hillary. She is very good with her stimulus plans, feeling peoples' pain,..
No wonder she does better with the eonomically insecure because they sense her authenticity. Pretty soon people will be losing interest in airy talk about hope and bipartisanship and wanting to hear more about bread and butter issues.

Posted by bob h | January 11, 2008 9:25 AM

Yeah, ummm, this isn't a new ad. I have seen this very same ad playing on my air waves because I live next to NH. Maybe it's new to those in Nevada, but it isn't a new ad.
BTW, go Barack!

Posted by Brennan in VT | January 11, 2008 9:29 AM

The bipartisan uniter who would bring us together by transcending ideology is at every turn on every policy an unwavering...liberal Democrat.-Krauthammer

Make no mistake, this is precisely why Obama scares the living daylights out of lots of folks on the right.

Posted by Jake | January 11, 2008 9:33 AM

Xeynon:

Electability is a major factor for me -- maybe the single most important -- so I'm planning to vote for Obama in the New York primary. But I'm nervous about this particular roll of the dice, and wonder why Obama is willfully neglecting specifics to advance a fuzzy, feel-good approach. What seems fresh and exciting right now may feel stale and superficial by September, especially once the Republicans employ their typical scorched-earth tactics. And I don't think for one nano-second that Obama will win over a bunch of independents and disaffected GOP moderates if McCain is the Republican nominee. The GOP always, always marches in lock-step, despite their rhetoric. I call it "Specter Syndrome."

Until, say,l Andrew Sullivan explicitly announces he'll vote for Obama over McCain, I won't believe it will happen.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 11, 2008 9:34 AM

There is a pretty vast difference to me between:

1) Taking partisanship off the table so that we can invade foreign countries, cut taxes, and reduce social safety nets.

2) Taking stupid meaningless wedge issues off the table so that we can stop distracting voters from what is actually important.

I haven't found this too confusing.

Posted by Barbar | January 11, 2008 9:40 AM

We ain't no sect. No! We ain't no fucking faction.

Posted by Spenc/r Ackerm/n | January 11, 2008 9:47 AM

I think a lot of people misapprehend Obama, and it's partially his own fault. His speeches are inspiring and stirring, no doubt about it, but his strongest characteristics (to this supporter's mind, anyway) are his cool, detached intellect and his thoughtfulness. He actually seems more grown up than Clinton, more cerebral, like he takes pleasure in thinkings things through. I wish he would get more concrete and specific and emphasize his impressive legislative record in Illinois, his work as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and his interesting ideas about policy. I wish people were more motivated to do this reading and learning and thinking about him on their own, but I suppose most people's knowledge of Presidential candidates comes from campaign ads and speeches, so Obama needs to get more down-to-earth and specific. Or else we might have a Hillary Clinton victory born of Nixonian self-pity, sentimentality, and political cowardice. And then we'll go on to lose in the general election, of course.

Posted by MortimerPeacock | January 11, 2008 9:47 AM

Thank you for reminding me of that particularly troubling phrase in Obama's 2004 speech, Matt. I live in a Blue State. I am an atheist. I do not "worship an awesome God" or any kind of god, or even a pretty pony, or a unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster, for that matter. So, I guess I'm not part of the "we" that is Obama's America.

Obama's faith based bigotry is extremely troubling, and what I've never understood is why so many secular (or secular tolerant) Americans can support this guy. It really does seem to me that he has adopted the Joe Lieberman holy roller method of politics, and I for one don't need it.

And as for our gay friends in Red States, I don't really see how voting for a man who is willing, in one of those red states, to directly ally himself AND repeatedly defend AND have as one of his most high profile surrogates an outspoken homophobic bigot is doing those friends any favors.

Posted by dk | January 11, 2008 9:47 AM

Matthew, it's about time you come out of the closet and openly support Obama. The dem. party needs this.

Posted by hmmm | January 11, 2008 9:54 AM

mr hope strikes again!

Funny how only his hometown paper (who really knows what he's about) is writing critically about his background.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04,1,7336556.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=chi_news_politics_util

Posted by Dem08 | January 11, 2008 9:56 AM

I agree with dk. That quote from 2004 is troubling and offensive. I mean, I don't coach little league, I've never coached little league, and I don't ever intend to coach little league. I guess to Obama I'm just not a "real" American.

Posted by Tractarian | January 11, 2008 10:01 AM

I like the ad, although seeing a Democratic candidate citing the praise of Joe Klein has to give one pause.

On the other hand, being attacked by the idiot Krauthammer is an unqualified positive.

Posted by ChuckE | January 11, 2008 10:08 AM

Say what you want about Obama's message, he's selling the same root beer in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and everywhere. He's confident in the product. From the Clinton camp we get quotes like "Hillary wants somebody in there that is going to comprehend what messaging conversations are being had, and how things are being formulated," (via ABC NEWS). WTF does that even mean? A successful marketing campaign isn't leadership. That's something the Clintons have never grasped.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 11, 2008 10:10 AM

Yeah, I've found it strange how many liberals find themselves off-put by Obama's plan to form a coalition of Democrats, Independents, and disaffected Republicans around the common goal of passing liberal Democratic legislation. It comes off as an insane purity test, where your liberal goals are only valid if they aren't supported by anyone who ever voted Republican.

As to the quote from the speech, I don't think Obama's point was "If you don't worship an awesome God, actively complain about federal agents in libraries, coach little league, and have gay friends, you're not a real American." And by "don't think," I mean "understand pretty clearly that that wasn't what he was getting at." The point was that everyone in every red state isn't your standard flag-waving Republican, and everyone in every blue state isn't your stereotypical liberal democrat. Why is anyone offended by this?

Posted by LittleMac | January 11, 2008 10:13 AM

History as counter to fact:

Fortunately, during the 110th Congress, an uprising by the very same ordinary, honest, decent Republicans who support Obama today swung the pendulum back toward the center, and people of good will were able to come together across the aisle...

Oh, wait. That didn't happen, did it? What would it have taken? Apparently, gauzy rhetoric! I'm sure that will provide a strong foundation for change. In fact, I think I'm going to name my unity pony Change!

For me, Obama's rightward slide on Social Security was a real turn off and turned me countersuggestible, so now oratory pushes me away rather than bringing me in; live by oratory, perish by parsing.

I keep hearing from the OFB that Obama wants the broadest possible coalition (translation to policy terms: lowest common denominator). But what's the marginal utility of the last low information Christianist voter? One could argue that it's important to build the strongest possible coalition, and that's not necessarily the broadest.

I don't believe in the unity pony, even though that makes me a bad person. The idea seems to be that "partisan bickering" is primarily a generational problem ("the conflicts of the 90s") and that Obama can transcend it. Of course, "conflicts of the 90s" is code for the pervasive Hillary Hatred engineered and fomented by the conservative movement; one of the many right wing tropes brilliantly leveraged by the Obama "movement." If you want to read about a particularly egregious example of what the unity pony will turn out to mean in practice, and the choice that the Democrats are making here, check out the critique of some work from the early and vociferous Obama advocate and Conservative Andrew Sullivan at this post.

Unity, my sweet Aunt Fanny. If the core of Obama's appeal is just.... wrong, then the oratory and the policy papers just don't matter.

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 10:16 AM

Obama wants the broadest possible coalition (translation to policy terms: lowest common denominator)

There's your problem: you should not make that assumption. The whole point of the Obama movement is that it is possible to persuade a large coalition of voters (yes, including those who are independent and even registered Republican) that our problems require progressive solutions.

LittleMac has got it exactly right. (BTW, in case it wasn't clear, my post @10:01 was in jest.)

Posted by Tractarian | January 11, 2008 10:29 AM

ChuckE:

Seeing a Democratic candidate citing the praise of Joe Klein has to give one pause.

Yeah, you'd think the ad wouldn't cite Klein, but conservative operatives Andy Sullivan, William Kristol, and David Brooks, all of whom are pro-Obama. (Though not, oddly, Paul Krugman. I wonder why that is?)

LittleMac:

I've found it strange how many liberals find themselves off-put by Obama's plan to form a coalition of Democrats, Independents, and disaffected Republicans around the common goal of passing liberal Democratic legislation. It comes off as an insane purity test...

Well, I've found it strange how desperate people are to believe in the magic unity pony.

And I also find it strange how the OFB can characterize a random collection assembled around the charismatic oratory of an individual figure as a "coalition" let alone a "movement."

Why isn't such a "coalition" going to break apart at the first real test, when real interests are at stake, instead of gauzy rhetoric? What, again, is the marginal utility of the last low information, "disaffected" Christianist?

I think what we're going to end up with from Obama, in policy outcomes, is the Democratic Party circa 2002 under Tom Daschle -- a very early Obama endorser. And speaking of purity tests, Daschle's Congress demonstrated its "unity" and "bipartisanship" by rolling over for Bush on Iraq. Last I checked, that hadn't worked out real well.

OFB PROPHYLACTIC I know that Obama opposed the war as a state legislator. This comment is talking about likely future policy outcomes under the model for political economy that Obama is proposing, not individual views, no matter how powerfully expressed, in the past.

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 10:37 AM

Oh, wait. That didn't happen, did it? What would it have taken? Apparently, gauzy rhetoric! I'm sure that will provide a strong foundation for change. In fact, I think I'm going to name my unity pony Change!

You seem to be consistently making a category error. Are you also puzzled by how breaking down into tears will be good for the economy or bring peace to the Middle East?

Posted by Barbar | January 11, 2008 10:38 AM

Tractarian, we cross posted. See comments on the nature of coalitions and the marginal utility of voters. I don't think it's that I don't understand what Obama "really means" (a very common trope among Obama supporters, BTW), but that I disagree with it). I love magic ponies as much as the next man. But...

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 10:40 AM

barbar:

Simple answers to simple questions: No.

Name and explain the category error?

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 10:44 AM

Tractarian, I guess I just give Obama more credit than you do. I think he very carefully chose the words "WE believe in an awesome God" when talking about blue-states to an American audience. He's been very consistent in pandering to Christians. Look at his New Hampshire concession speech. As far as I know, Obama never lived in the south. So why, all of a sudden, is he adopting a southern preacher voice?

And, ever consistent, throwing his friends, the red state gays, under the bus, was also pandering to Christians. We have had enough bigotry in this country against secular people, and against gays, and I don't think that trying to co-opt that message just as a way to get a few independent and republican votes is the way to go. And frankly, even if I did, I don't think it will work. The anti-secular, homophobic bigots that Obama is wooing right now are not going to vote Democrat in November. Why would they, when come that time they will no doubt have a much more anti-secular, much more homophobic bigot to vote for on the Republican ticket. Sure, they are sympathetic to Obama's coded rhetoric of intolerance in comparison to the more tolerant Democratic alternatives, but that won't last once they have a more concrete Republican alternative.

Posted by dk | January 11, 2008 10:48 AM

I think what we're going to end up with from Obama, in policy outcomes, is the Democratic Party circa 2002 under Tom Daschle -- a very early Obama endorser.

That's ludicrous. Consider that when Daschle led the party, he was up against a very popular (at the time) president and a Republican congressional majority.

There will be no such political forces to go up against in 2009 and beyond.

Don't get me wrong - Daschle failed miserably as an opposition leader. But even if we were to elect Daschle president, the policy results would be demonstrably different because he would be the president with majority support in Congress rather than a feckless minority leader.

Why isn't such a "coalition" going to break apart at the first real test, when real interests are at stake, instead of gauzy rhetoric?

How about because a majority of Americans support progressive policies, and those voters will bring pressure to bear on moderate members of Congress?

Posted by Tractarian | January 11, 2008 10:51 AM

As far as I know, Obama never lived in the south. So why, all of a sudden, is he adopting a southern preacher voice?

Ever talk to a black Chicagoan? They don't exactly sound like Yankees.

Posted by goethean | January 11, 2008 10:58 AM

dk wrote:
And, ever consistent, throwing his friends, the red state gays, under the bus, was also pandering to Christians.

In what way did he throw gays under the bus? I don't buy all of Sullivan's Obama-boosterism, but he did link to this post from another blog which makes a pretty good case that Obama is actually slightly better than either Clinton or Edwards on gay rights...some of the comments on the post also discuss the issue of Obama having that homophobic gospel singer on his tour, whose views Obama publicly disavowed, I recommend reading over those as well since I think the commenters make good arguments.

Posted by Jesse M. | January 11, 2008 10:59 AM

he will be better able to command public opinion by dint of his personal appeal and rhetorical skills.

AFAIK, every bit of research into the notion has determined that the president's bully pulpit doesn't exist.

Obama's speeches inspire approval in independents and respect even in Republicans.

Approval, perhaps, but approval doesn't really matter (especially during the primary season when they're not being asked to choose between him and a Republican nominee) -- agreement matters, and there's little in those speeches to agree or disagree with.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 11, 2008 11:07 AM

Tractarian:

Not "ludicrous" at all, considering (a) the amount of resistance any Democratic President will encounter, and (b) my inclination to regard Obama as a centrist, rather than a progressive (cue Social Security permathread). (Personally, I find the Chicago Tribune story encouraging. If Obama can do the bare knuckles thing, that's going to be what we need.)

Your real point:

How about because a majority of Americans support progressive policies, and those voters will bring pressure to bear on moderate members of Congress?

Because everything I read, and especially from Obama's proponents, says that the "support" is not for progressive policies, but for the charismatic individual with powerful oratory. Not the same thing at all.

As far as bringing pressure to bear from below on the moderate Republicans, it's the exact point of "history as counter to fact" above that this is very unlikely to happen. There have been no signs of it so far. So what does it take?

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 11:09 AM

Sorry Jesse M. No dice on convincing me that Obama didn't throw gays under the bus. You can't publicly disavow someone and then let them headline your campaign rallies and spend half an hour letting that person use the stage to attack gay people.

Already in the primary, Obama has legitimized anti-secular and homophobic bigotry in a way that republicans would only dream of. If that passes for unity these days, I guess I'll stay one of those nasty partisans for the time being.

Posted by dk | January 11, 2008 11:20 AM

Obama does not represent vacuous Broderesque bipartisanship and certainly not Clintonian triangulation. He does not serious expect the Republican establishment to work with him on passing his agenda.

The fact is that plenty of rank-and-file Republicans (e.g. many of my family members) are perfectly willing to vote for progressive changes such as universal health care, environmental responsibility, and a sane foreign policy. But they are instinctively revolted by the Clintons and the ideological framing that they represent. Obama's strength is his ability to present the progressive agenda in a new light and build a coalition to support it--not by courting the Republican party from the top down, but by courting Republican voters from the bottom up.

Remember the "what's the matter with Kansas" phenomenon: many people in the South and middle America vote Republican in contradiction to their own economic and political interest. They do it because liberalism has become a dirty word thanks to the baggage of the 60s.

The case for Obama is that he's an extremely intelligent politician who can move us beyond the rhetoric of late 20th-c liberalism without ceding ground on the substance of issues. Keep in mind that of the three major Dem candidates, Obama has the most consistently liberal voting record.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 11, 2008 11:30 AM

I think lambert's comments demonstrate why Hillary cannot win -- or, at least, should not. The main argument in favor of her I have seen these days amounts to a big knock-down of Obama's rhetoric, with the implicit and arrogant assumption that the serious people need to take charge and make sure everyone understands that hope for real change is farcical.

You cannot win on this strategy unless you scare people into taking your side. Obama's argument says that I can get enough people to create a majority to support change on basic issues -- the very issues that the democrats and the left have failed to move forward for 30 years!

Your arguments against Obama only work if you convince enough voters that, in fact, most American's are jackasses who will not join any coalition intended to make their lives better. Perhaps you are right, perhaps there will permanently be "something the matter with Kansas," but by making this argument you insult not just Kansas, but enough people to guarantee a republican takes the white house.

The more I read from Hillary supporters the more I think Obama can take this thing.

Posted by dan | January 11, 2008 11:46 AM

Joseph:

I hear you. The problem is that it's all anecdotal.

And I've got different anecdotes, as do many of us.

You write:

... "liberalism has become a dirty word thanks to the baggage of the 60s" ...

Wrong historically -- the lack of agency in "has become" is telling. Liberalism didn't become a dirty word by accident; it was made dirty by people who were very well funded to do just that -- the same conservative movement that's going to go after Obama when and if he's elected.

It's not a generational thing, it's an institutional thing.

When that happens -- when, say, they start making "progressive" a dirty word, which they will do with extreme elan and great efficiency* -- what happens to these moderate Republicans then? I'm betting they peel right off and "come home" to the Republican Party, after massive obstructionism by the Republicans, just in time for the 2010 midterms.

Again, what's the marginal utility of the last low information Republican voter?

Why not build a mandate that's as strong as possible around real problems and real solutions, as opposed to a mandate that's as broad as possible, and based on a charismatic individual?

NOTE * This is why it's so freakin dangerous that the OFB uses right wing memes consistently. What happens when a new one emerges that's even more toxic to Democrats than the existing ones?

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 11:46 AM

Miscellaneous:

Dan:

To be clear, my "job" is to shove the Overton Window left. The candidates are of lesser concern to me (in case you have be classified as a Hillary supporter).

OFB talking point alert:

Babar mentioned "category mistake." Maybe they'll come back and say what they mean. But if not, I noticed a rash of comments over at The Great Orange Satan that would label content as a "straw man" without ever explaining why. Bullshit got called on that, so maybe "category mistake" is the replacemet. These things seem to come in waves....

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 11:52 AM

"Why not build a mandate that's as strong as possible around real problems and real solutions, as opposed to a mandate that's as broad as possible, and based on a charismatic individual?"

This question begs yet more questions. One would be, why has the democratic party failed to do this in the last few decades? Another would be, which candidate for president is based poised to avoid similar failure? And another: what supports the view that Hillary Clinton (a) desires this in the first place and (b) could actually make it happen?

Posted by dan | January 11, 2008 11:54 AM

okay then -- at least this isn't in support of Hillary. I accept what you say from anyone who's choice in the race is none of the above.

Posted by dan | January 11, 2008 11:56 AM

"...succeeded achieved political success..."

Now that's some word-smithing! Two verbs, an adjective, and a noun... And the noun is the same as one of the verbs!

It's almost like an idea rhyme... Don't change a thing.

Posted by Herb | January 11, 2008 12:01 PM

It would be wonderful to convince red staters that they are really liberal. But if in order to do that your policy prescriptions move right, then what has been accomplished?

As far as I can see, the things that each of the top three dems will attempt to accomplish as President are pretty close. None of them will go about it in such a different way from how it's always been done--money, lobbyists, persausion, etc.

I feel like I know how far to the right Clinton will go and I know there's a limit, can't say the same about the other two. Better the devil you know . . . .? Anyway, that's my thinking this week, may change again next week.

Posted by ally's gift | January 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Sorry Jesse M. No dice on convincing me that Obama didn't throw gays under the bus. You can't publicly disavow someone and then let them headline your campaign rallies and spend half an hour letting that person use the stage to attack gay people.

Well, he didn't disavow McClurkin, he disavowed McClurkin's views on gays; McClurkin's role at events was to be a singer, not to argue for his political or religious views. I suppose this is part of Obama's "disagree with conservative's opinions without demonizing them as people" thing. And when did he allow McClurkin to "attack gay people" for half an hour? I thought McClurkin just made a few comments in the midst of his emceeing and singing, and that they were not particular hateful but that they reflected McClurkin's misguided views that homosexuality was a choice and that gays would be happier if they turned straight and became "ex-gays" like he claims to be.

Already in the primary, Obama has legitimized anti-secular and homophobic bigorty

And how did he legitimize anti-secular bigotry? "We worship an awesome God in the blue states" obviously wasn't meant to cover everyone any more than the subsequent statement that "We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states" (Do you think that statement legitimizes bigotry against people who don't play sports? Do you think Obama is claiming that everyone in the red states has gay friends?), I think he was mainly just saying that there's plenty of diversity in both blue states and red states so that simplistic statements about the divisions between blue-staters and red-staters should be avoided. And if you look at this page of short quotes on his views on different subjects, he does think that religion should have a place in the public square (pointing to examples like Martin Luther King and the suffragettes), but he also says "I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I'm a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure."

Posted by Jesse M. | January 11, 2008 12:05 PM

To whoever was misguidely taking Obama to be some sort of ant-secular "bigot", uh...do you listen to the guy at all?

Here's what he said to David Brody (!) on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network:

Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.

OMG what a bigot!!!

via Mark Kleiman, who has more on Obama's ability to speak in religious language while delivering a distinctly progressive message.

Which is basically what he's done this entire campaign: he goes to the CBN, speaks a language they understand, and then sells the liberal message. He speaks a policy language those on the right understand, but then sells liberal policies. He shatters all the stereotypes of what political liberals are: he's not condescending, he's not super-rich (compared to pretty much anyone else in this race) and to the extent that he is, its all new-found wealth from the re-publish of his book in 2004, he relates well to rural mid-westerners (see: Iowa) and urbanites.

This upsets people...why?

Posted by Michael | January 11, 2008 12:06 PM

Again, what's the marginal utility of the last low information Republican voter?

You keep asking this question as if it matters. Implicit is the assumption that Obama will "spend" units of liberal-ness to get the last low information Republican voter (that's what marginal utility means). In fact, as everyone who is paying attention recognizes, Obama's actual policy positions are liberal. He's not giving up anything in terms of policy to get the independent and Republican voters. The relevant question is: what's the value of winning by 8-10% in the popular vote rather than .5% of the popular vote?

Posted by Led | January 11, 2008 12:08 PM

My first point is that everyone should re-read Joseph Clarke's post above...because it needs to be said again, and again.

I find fault with the media in general as they focus not on the substance...of any of the candidates...but rather on the fluff.

Start talking about issues.

We are a nation in serious trouble, both at home and abroad. Obama is desperately trying to say to us that nothing will change unless and until we, the electorate, get seriously engaged with each other to find solutions for these serious problems.

He is asking that we throw out the name calling, the dirty tricks, the partisanship so we can start talking to each other.

He is NOT asking that we sway on our core beliefs.

His main point is IF we talk to each other, we will find that we are more alike than we are different. We believe alike more than we believe differently.

His other main point is that we, the electorate, CAN affect change simply by telling our dear elected ones what we want. Think back on all the nonsense the Reps got through because they mobilized their flocks to swamp switchboards. It works.

Good grief folks...listen to the words these candidates are using and look at their records. Either that or sit down and stop complaining about government and let the talking heads, party machinery decide your future for you.

It matters not which candidate you support. If nothing else comes of Obama's run, he has at the very least put into question who controls whom in our government.

We can affect change...no matter what we believe or who we support. We can elevate our politics out of the gutter...no matter what we believe or who we support.

Yes we can.

Posted by G Davis | January 11, 2008 12:08 PM

Because everything I read, and especially from Obama's proponents, says that the "support" is not for progressive policies, but for the charismatic individual with powerful oratory. Not the same thing at all.

Fair enough. But if my objective were to generate more support for progressive policies, I'd rather have the charismatic, powerful orator make my case, than the political lightning rod that half the country will instinctively tune out.

Posted by Tractarian | January 11, 2008 12:10 PM

Also shatters the stereotype of the "angry black leader", btw.

As for adopting a "preacher" cadence...um, that's not a southern thing, that's right in line with the tradition of great black orators. Seriously, go listen to some old speeches, not just from MLK but from all the great speakers of his generation too.

Posted by Michael | January 11, 2008 12:16 PM

Dan, as to Hillary, see my comment above. (The OFB seems to live in a binary pro-Hillary/pro-Obama world, but that world is orthogonal to mine.)

* * *

Your main point:

Why has the democratic party failed to do this in the last few decades...

This is, indeed, the timeframe we need to think on. It's also a question on the order of "Why have real wages been flat for thirty years" and in fact the answer is the same [pimp alert: my own post, but the tools need to be out there]. In short form, very well funded right wing interests practiced politics very effectively; over the last 30 years they built a network of institutions that structured our discourse and our politics to their advantage, with a tremendous ROI in terms of tax policy alone. As I said above, it's not generational, it's institutional. It may appear generational because of the long time frame, but the long time frame is a result of conservatives and their funders thinking strategically, as we need to.

Now, at last, the conservative movement that has been dominant since the 1970s is breaking up -- or, I should say, being broken up, partly because people are finally seeing they really don't like the effects of highly concentrated wealth and great inequality in terms of policies (like no health insurance), partly because of increasingly effective (which doesn't say effective...) efforts by Democrats in Congress, partly because the racist ploy of the Southern strategy and the appeal to bigotry in gay-baiting don't work so well any more, and even partly because of efforts from "open source" politics people like me working to create a new discourse.

So this election is hugely important. Potentially, it's a watershed. And I want to see policies that are as progressive as possible coming from that moment, and am trying to do whatever I can do to make that happen.

Including trying to put candidates on the spot when they present vacuous ideas about "unity."

* * *

NOTE If you say -- see OFB talking point alert, supra, because the technique looks the same -- "beg the question, you need to say why, and not just throw the label out there.

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 12:20 PM

So this election is hugely important. Potentially, it's a watershed. And I want to see policies that are as progressive as possible coming from that moment, and am trying to do whatever I can do to make that happen.

Except what you're "doing" is suggesting a tack that's less politically effective than the current tack of the candidate in question. For someone who's praising the effectiveness of the right-wing political machine of the past 3 decades, you seem to have a poor understanding of what effective politics actually is.

Obama is demonstrating precisely that, and you're trying to bury him for it.

Posted by Michael | January 11, 2008 12:27 PM

Actually, the marginal utility question is good, since you come up with a riposte:

The relevant question is: what's the value of winning by 8-10% in the popular vote rather than .5% of the popular vote?

Well, nothing, if, for example, winning by 10% meant appealing to some category of low information voters by privatizing Social Security -- to take a hypothetical example. So, there is a marginal utility question after all, eh?

And surely the numbers are not 8-10% vs. .5%, but more like 8% vs. 4%. I don't want to get down in the weeds on polling, but if the tide is running toward Democrats, it's going to run for any Democrat.

Incidentally, the 10% (presumably) for Obama assumes that he remains as untarnished as he curently is. I doubt that will happen. The Republicans have proven that they're very good at the smear.

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 12:27 PM

Lambert, we're back!

The category error is not being able to tell the difference between things you do to gain popular support, and things you do to enact policies. You consistently express befuddlement on this issue when the subject is Obama. How is Obama's well-received speech at the 2004 convention going to get us universal health care? It must be a right-wing ploy!

I remember when liberals were wondering "What's the Matter with Kansas." I guess the answer was: Kansas is conservative. And economic populism is very unpopular. So simple.

LS PROPHYLACTIC: This obviously hardly implies that you should support Obama.

Posted by Barbar | January 11, 2008 12:30 PM

Well, nothing, if, for example, winning by 10% meant appealing to some category of low information voters by privatizing Social Security -- to take a hypothetical example. So, there is a marginal utility question after all, eh?

EXCEPT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE AND IS SUCH COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE.

Obama has put out mainstream political positions. This has been repeated over and over. Why do you refuse to grant this point? It's indisputable.

And surely the numbers are not 8-10% vs. .5%, but more like 8% vs. 4%. I don't want to get down in the weeds on polling, but if the tide is running toward Democrats, it's going to run for any Democrat.

Incidentally, the 10% (presumably) for Obama assumes that he remains as untarnished as he curently is. I doubt that will happen. The Republicans have proven that they're very good at the smear.

Er, do you not see how inherently self-contradictory these two paragraphs are?

On the one hand, you proclaim Obama can't hit 10% because the republicans are very good at smear...and on the other hand you claim the tide is turning the Dems' way and any Dem will win easily.

Your entire argument is confused and arguing against a situation that, frankly, is completely separate from the reality of the Obama campaign.

Posted by Michael | January 11, 2008 12:31 PM

"Bury him?" Last I checked, this was primary season. This is the time we get to test our candidates, right?

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 12:32 PM

But I'm nervous about this particular roll of the dice, and wonder why Obama is willfully neglecting specifics to advance a fuzzy, feel-good approach.

I really don't think Obama is neglecting specifics. Go to his website. He's got detailed plans for Iraq, detailed plans for education, detailed plans for healthcare.. detailed plans out the wahzoo.

The charge that he's fuzzy-headed or doesn't have a specific vision for the country is, I think a meme that was put out there by the Clintons and has been picked up and propagated by a lazy media.

Posted by Xeynon | January 11, 2008 12:34 PM

Lambert, you are aware that Obama's primary economic advisor was trotted out in 2004 to explicitly argue that Bush wanted to take a trillion dollars from senior citizens and give it to Wall Street fund managers? You know that, right?

Posted by Barbar | January 11, 2008 12:36 PM

And as a fierce student of recent history, you know that Social Security is the ONLY ISSUE the Democrats have shown any spine on, right?

Posted by Barbar | January 11, 2008 12:38 PM

Oh, and Andrew Sullivan isn't a citizen, so he's not eligible to vote. If he were, I think he'd probably vote McCain in that matchup, but independents further to the left of him (such as myself) would vote Obama. I would definitely vote McCain over either Hillary or Edwards. (Yes, I'm realize I'm only one person and don't count for as much as a poll would, but a lot of my moderate friends have the exact same take on things, and the polls seem to reflect that).

Posted by Xeynon | January 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Oh, and Andrew Sullivan isn't a citizen, so he's not eligible to vote. If he were, I think he'd probably vote McCain in that matchup, but independents further to the left of him (such as myself) would vote Obama. I would definitely vote McCain over either Hillary or Edwards, however. (Yes, I realize I'm only one person and don't count for as much as a poll would, but a lot of my moderate friends have the exact same take on things, and the polls seem to reflect that).

Posted by Xeynon | January 11, 2008 12:40 PM

So if, counterfactually, Obama's policy proposals were significantly less liberal than the alternatives, then I agree that you would have to figure out if the cost of getting more votes was worth it. Fortunately, Obama isn't significantly less liberal. So the question is really just whether more votes are better than less votes. Call me crazy, but I would say yes.

By the way, how (hypotehtically) raising the cap on the payroll tax is anywhere in the same hemisphere as "privatizing Social Security" is beyond me.

Posted by Led | January 11, 2008 12:42 PM

Approval, perhaps, but approval doesn't really matter (especially during the primary season when they're not being asked to choose between him and a Republican nominee) -- agreement matters, and there's little in those speeches to agree or disagree with.

Two words. Ronald. Reagan.

This kind of mistaken thinking is one reason why you guys keep losing elections despite having more popular policies on many issues.

Posted by Xeynon | January 11, 2008 12:48 PM

Babar:

"We" -- Oh, a tag team? It really is a coincidence, but RL is calling me now (the check the HRC campaign sends me for all this isn't nearly enough. Just kidding!)

Oh, Michael:

On the one hand, you proclaim Obama can't hit 10% because the republicans are very good at smear...and on the other hand you claim the tide is turning the Dems' way and any Dem will win easily.

How does this contradict? The tide is running our way; any Dem is likely to win for that reason; Obama is all about upside potential (the 10% that I don't think he'll get); Hillary -- and if you're reading this, my billing is on the way ;-) -- is about downside risk (everybody who's likely to hate her already does so); Edwards -- who for some reason nobody mentions -- is likely to do well as well.

Babar, thanks for explaining "category error" and not just throwing out the term. You write:

The category error is not being able to tell the difference between things you do to gain popular support, and things you do to enact policies.

This strikes me -- and I do have to check out for awhile, so I will probably end up caricaturing your argument, as the argument that Obama is going to be just like Bush -- in terms of tactics only, I hasten to add. Just as Bush ran as a compassionate Conservative and then governed from the hard right, Obama will run as a "unity" candidate, and then govern as a progressive.

Is that what you're saying?

The question is not about being "less politically effective" or more, if the metric is margin in the popular vote. The question is being "effective enough" to enact maximally progressive policies. I'm very, very skeptical that Obama will be allowed ride the unity pony that far. And the rightward shift in Iowa (see Social Security permathread) really gave me the creeps.

* * *

To be continued....

Posted by Lambert Strether | January 11, 2008 12:48 PM

Babar questions:

And as a fierce student of recent history, you know that Social Security is the ONLY ISSUE the Democrats have shown any spine on, right?

Of course. (I would say "forced to show spine," but let that pass.) See background here and here, from a well-known pony hater and Hillary acolyte.

There was absolutely not reason -- no good reason, I should say -- that I can see for Obama to have put that issue in play in Iowa --especially by using it as club to beat Hillary with and then claiming, in the next breath, that SS shouldn't be a "political football."

All Obama has to do is take Social Security privatization off the table now, going forward, with some kind of statement* (Past statements are useless, since he muddied the waters on it.) Of course, on DK, this suggestion was met with a chorus of derision and abuse and invective, but I think those were rookies. You guys seem like the A team, so maybe you can do better....

NOTE * No pasting from the Obama site, please. Thank you! Statement going forward. Maybe some "oratory"?

***

To be continued....

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 12:59 PM

lambert, I agree that the conservative movement will go after Obama if he wins the nomination. They'll throw everything they've got at him, and the messianic aura he has today will be significantly muddied by November.

But the institutions of conservatism can only do so much if they lack popular support. While it's true that the Republican party will try to make "progressive" a dirty word, why should we assume from the outset that they'll succeed? I think it would be a mistake for us to start the general election campaign from a position of defensiveness or a perception that we're weak. Clinton's message, in my view, is that instead of aiming for radical change, we should stick with the safe, experienced candidate because the progressive agenda is basically implausible. dan makes a persuasive argument that it's a candidacy based on fear: The Republicans's campaigns are based on fear of al-Qaeda, and Clinton primary campaign is based on fear of Republicans.

This is not to suggest that Obama is a starry-eyed idealist. He's a remarkably shrewd politician who is as comfortable making backroom deals as he is giving inspirational speeches. And he's not naive about the conservative institutions arrayed against him. But if "Kansas" can be persuaded to vote its economic interest--and I think that's something Obama can accomplish--then we can create a coalition for real progress.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 11, 2008 1:08 PM

Re faith, the Obama doubters might also want to have a look at this.

Why is it that before every election a sizeable chunk of Democrats start living in "I want a pony"-land and think they can ignore religious people and people who are by nature or nurture a tad conservative (in the traditional sense of the word, not the mockery the right has made out of this word)?!

You're living in the US, for god's sake! At the very least half the people think that Sweden is the socialist seventh circle of hell and that atheists have no basis whatsoever for morality. The best you can hope for is some sort of a moderate to lead this strange country - if you really can't bear it, which I would find perfectly understandable, move to Europe!

Posted by novakant | January 11, 2008 1:11 PM

Obama on S.S. privatization
" I think that it is an important option on the table, but the key, in addition to making sure that we don't privatize, because Social Security is that floor beneath none of us can sink. And we've got to make sure that we preserve Social Security is to do the same thing that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were able to do back in 1983, which is come up with a bipartisan solution that puts Social Security on a firm footing for a long time.

2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 200

Posted by Ann | January 11, 2008 1:14 PM

Novakant:

... move to Europe!

Ah, yes, very familiar.

Hey, let's play a game! Why don't you pretend I'm a moderate Republican, and try to persuade me, instead of using yet another right wing talking point to beat up on a progressive? Babar's actually making on-point, engaged responses! I suggest you emulate him....

Just saying. Ciao!

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 1:22 PM

Well, nothing, if, for example, winning by 10% meant appealing to some category of low information voters by privatizing Social Security -- to take a hypothetical example. So, there is a marginal utility question after all, eh?

Obama's solution to Social Security is to EXPAND the public part of it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/ You yammer about a conservative position but he is actually pushing the most liberal position around and getting conservatives to support it!

Clinton has opposed the idea of expanding Social Security http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm She, not Obama, has the more conservative position on Social Security. It's not offensive, just status quo, but that's the difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton pushes for something tolerable and better than the Republicans. Obama pushes for something ambitious and forward-looking.

Obama's basic strategy is that Americans are in general pretty liberal. On all the hot issues like SS, Iraq, healthcare, etc. 70% or so are on our side. The Republicans hang on by creating divisions between their team and our team and convincing a substantial part of the populace to vote against what they really want so they can support "their team". If you can break down the partisan divide and tackle each issue on its merits liberal policies will sweep the field.

Posted by FairEconomist | January 11, 2008 1:37 PM

To those like lambert strether: I think you should seriously reconsider the position that Obama will not pass liberal enough policy for you in comparison to Clinton.

Seriously. Were you here for the 90s? Do you think Hillary would be different? Or do you think that Bill advanced a truly progressive agenda during that time? I'm really quite curious to know which is the case. In my view, gutting wellfare kind of balanced out raising taxes on the rich. He didn't always have a Democratic congress, but that was partly his fault - his political style undermined the Democratic party and simultaneously earned him the emnity of Republicans.

I think you take some risks with Obama where he uses certain language to broaden his appeal and *may* be undermining the Democratic message. SS is a big one for me. But I'd rather take that chance on a candidate who seems immensely popular and far more likely to strengthen the progressive brand instead of going with the known commodity in Clinton: laundry list of domestic liberal ideas, then triangulate back to the center once you're elected (plus a much more hawkish foreign policy for my taste).

Finally, how is this a Clinton-Obama debate? Shouldn't it be a Obama-Edwards debate? Edwards is the one who talks the big game as a liberal with a strong liberal position and the clear intention to take the fight to Washington and try to pass a liberal agenda. I mean, at least he'd try. Do you think Clinton would even do that? Where is the upside with Clinton? If she's more liberal than Obama but too serious to actually implement any of those liberal ideas, what is the point?

Posted by mpowell | January 11, 2008 1:43 PM

Joseph Clarke:

"This is not to suggest that Obama is a starry-eyed idealist. He's a remarkably shrewd politician who is as comfortable making backroom deals as he is giving inspirational speeches."

Amen. I sincerely HOPE Obama is making backroom deals; I'd heard that if elected he might make Joe Biden Secretary of State, and I for one (and I do realize I might be literally one) think that would be very solid indeed. Probably the role old Joe was born to play.

The notion that Obama is just a hazy-headed idealist with his head in the clouds and no sense of the nitty-gritty details of policy and government is just a cheap talking point, useful to the Clinton machine and endlessly repeated by the press (it makes a neat, simple-minded, and easily-digestible story, after all). The man has PLENTY of specific ideas and plans; again, look at this website and look at his record. Read his speeches; he's delivered plenty of detailed, wonkish ones. I wish he'd talk more specifics in the next few weeks, though; Hillary seems to be successful in framing him as just a colorful character who offers nothing more than vague platitudes about "change" and "hope." That might give her the nomination; that and her Bush/Rove tactics that play to the bigoted Dixiecrat establishment in the Sun Belt.

Posted by MortimerPeacock | January 11, 2008 1:46 PM

using yet another right wing talking point

Believe it or not, "move to Europe" wasn't just a rhetorical swipe. I am a (center-left) European and happen to know a few Americans who have emigrated to London and Berlin respectively, because they were too gay or too left to lead a happy life in the US. This obviously isn't a great state of affairs (though they're very happy over here) and I hope that Obama would be able to make some inroads in this regard. But even if he's able to do that and the country should continue to liberalize after him, this is a process that will take two or three decades (I've seen something similar in Ireland). And criticizing Obama of all people for being too centrist is much more likely to hinder rather than further this process, simply because the US populace is a bit behind the times in certain regards, yet you need to win a lot of them over to effect any change at all, which in turn means making compromises while not relinquishing core goals. I feel like I'm talking to the Naderites who brought us 8 years of Bush.

Posted by novakant | January 11, 2008 1:58 PM

"We" -- Oh, a tag team

Lambert, the "we" was in response to

Babar mentioned "category mistake." Maybe they'll come back and say what they mean.

Posted by Barbar | January 11, 2008 2:24 PM

How is telling us, as Americans, that voting for him, Obama, will magically usher in a new era that transcends partisanship and brings us together as a nation not telling us what we want to hear?

Mr. Obama has been going to this line a lot lately it seems. That he is telling America what we need to hear, not what we want to hear (0:30 in the above video).

This strikes me as pretty disingenuous. We want to hear that we can move beyond political battlefronts, we need to hear what a hole we've dug for ourselves and how we're gonna get out of it, and just how much work and sacrifice that will take.

Mr. Obama may be able to provide many of the solutions that we desperately need in America, but for now all he's offering is empty rhetoric. Abiding by it at least would be a good place to start.

Posted by hcoppola | January 11, 2008 2:24 PM

hcoppola, I assume that Obama is referring specifically to Hillary Clinton's excessively poll-driven and focus-grouped rhetoric.

Obviously, a candidate who never tells Americans "what we want to hear" in a more general sense isn't going to get very far in a political campaign.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 11, 2008 2:37 PM

If Sarah Silverman did politics, her next movie would surely remind us that Obama is Magic. The distinction Matt attempts to draw (in Obama's message) between Broderism and something else doesn't hold a lot of water with me, since he is drawing out the similarities on more-conservative rather than more-liberal terms. It's not that blue states (lamentably, for me) worship an awesome God, vs. red states (lamentably, for them) having a few gay friends. It's blue states wanting genuine rather than phony national security, "vs." red states wondering where their next paycheck is coming from. In other words, yeah, we're more united than we've been led to believe, but on terms that are entirely Democratic, apart from a few questions of more exotic interest. But that's not what I'm hearing.

Posted by Rich | January 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Rich, I don't think your approach would win nearly as many Republican converts as Obama's is.

As for your concerns about Broderism, remember that Obama has a more consistent--and consistently liberal--voting record than Clinton or Edwards.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 11, 2008 2:52 PM

Obama is saying he won't do changing, WE will do changing.

He is not offering magical fixes, he's offering the hope that we actually can do something about the mess we're in...we being we the people.

He is saying get rid of all the we -v- they nonsense manufactured by DC pols and get down to business. It might require you investing some time in calling/writing your representatives...it might require we mobilize to elect like minded representatives...it might require work on our part. Gee, novel concept. The prez cannot affect real change alone.

Can he pull it off? That depends on us deciding who we want in charge of our governing...we the people or they the pols.

Good grief. If you're not hearing Obama's message, you have your fingers stuck in your ears singing la la la la la....

Posted by G Davis | January 11, 2008 3:07 PM

G Davis:

"We" make the change in a functioning democracy, so the idea of "who we want in charge of our governing" is hardly dispositive with regard to a particular candidate. Eh?

Barbar:

These things seem to come in waves, so if there is no "we," forgive my misperception.

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 4:16 PM

Lambert...only if you define change as only a physical change of elected ones...eh?

The words that Obama is speaking address change in a functioning sense. Read his IT white paper sometime to get a feel for how he envisions governing.

Transparency, accountability, lifting the process out from behind closed doors into the public light.

Sounds good to me if he accomplishes nothing else.

Listen to his words, not the soaring loftiness. Read his papers for the *beef*. Check out his advisers for the implementation.

Good stuff all...

Vote hope, not fear. Vote vision, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 11, 2008 9:04 PM

GD: i don't 'hope' for a bigger military, at the expense of much needed social programs. do you? well, obama does.

“First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense...

The Bush administration has proposed an increase in defense spending for next year. This is an important first step, but we are going to need at least an additional $30-$40 billion annually over the next several years to modernize our military, fill gaps in troop levels, ease the strain on our National Guard and Reserves, and support our wounded soldiers.

No, Barry, we don't "need" to spend that money on more military pork for red states.

How about spending it on things like universal health care or public education? 40B would go a long way, and actually help people, and not military contractors and illegally warmongering adventurers.

people, "hope" is not a plan, and i'm tired of so many who don't understand that.

Posted by chicago dyke | January 11, 2008 10:55 PM

Obama's "unity" message has sometimes seems to be mirroring Broder-like calls for "bipartisanship" -- for closer collaboration between elites in both parties. But there's always been a different, better side to the message, going back to The Speech from 2004 ...

Matt - It's extremely disappointing that you and others in the so-called liberal blogosphere have heretofore been unable to comprehend this difference. Don't you guys get paid to pay attention, or are you too busy fretting about the reinforcement of existing "frames" to recognize when someone is so clearly trying to bust through them?

Posted by RS | January 12, 2008 11:52 AM